Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sea Harriers

Mark Prisk: When the first Sea Harriers will be withdrawn from service.

Adam Ingram: The first of the three Sea Harrier squadrons will be withdrawn from service on 31 March 2004. It is planned to retire the second squadron in March 2005 and the final squadron in March 2006.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. His plans seem to rely on replacing the Sea Harrier with the GR7/9, yet, as many people know, that aircraft is not designed for the same purpose. It is designed to attack slow-moving tanks on land, not to defend against high-speed missiles at sea. Without the appropriate radar and missiles, how exactly is the Minister's plan going to work?

Adam Ingram: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has followed the progress of the decision. This was a balance of investment decision. In looking at the upgrade of the Harrier fleet and/or the continuation of the Sea Harrier, the cost of retaining the Sea Harrier was deemed prohibitive, and it would also have been technically difficult in terms of the upgrade programme that was envisaged. There was no certainty, having spent the money or having spent some money some way down the line, about getting the upgrade with the aircraft that he may now wish to see remaining in service. I suggest that he raise the matter with his shadow Chancellor, who envisages a cut of £1.5 billion. The cost of the upgrade is about £0.5 billion, with other whole-life costs attached. I only put the information to him; clearly, he has not been following it.

Gerald Howarth: The Government's own strategic defence review recognised in 1998 that air superiority and air defence would be essential for maritime operations, yet this week, Ministers will start removing air defence from our maritime forces, deliberately taking risks with men and ships by exposing them to air attack. The Minister knows that the GR7 is no substitute for the Sea Harrier and that there will be a serious capability gap between now and the arrival of the new carriers and the joint strike fighter, assuming that, as is planned, they are not delayed beyond 2012. Perhaps that is why HMS Ark Royal is now to be put in mothballs this month—because it cannot be protected by Sea Harriers. Even at this late hour, may I urge Ministers to keep to their original policy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementaries from the Front Bench are far too long.

Keith Simpson: That is just the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not be long in taking care of the Minister when the time comes.

Adam Ingram: I will be very brief. I refer the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) a few moments ago.

Married Quarters (Policing)

Robert Key: What assessment he has made of the policing of service married quarters in Salisbury constituency.

Ivor Caplin: While no specific assessment has taken place of the policing of service family accommodation in Salisbury, the policing requirements at all service family accommodation, including that located in Salisbury, is kept under review by the Ministry of Defence police commander responsible for public safety. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the safety of service personnel and their dependants remains a matter of significant concern to Ministers and the Department.

Robert Key: It ought to be of first concern to the Minister. Is he aware that, in the redeployment of the Ministry of Defence police and the cutting of their presence in the Salisbury area—only 14 MDP officers will be available to cover the Salisbury area—he is putting a new burden on the Wiltshire constabulary for the 300 or so criminal acts that require police presence every year in just the Amesbury area, and that this is no time to be cutting any of our security forces?

Ivor Caplin: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of these issues, because he and I have corresponded long and hard over this matter in the past six months, but I can say to him that the divisional support group will, as he knows, be located at Larkhill. It will have 22 officers, and I am confident that it will provide the type of policing that those families expect in Salisbury.

RAF Stafford

Paul Farrelly: What consideration he has given to representations made to him on the future of RAF Stafford.

Adam Ingram: At a recent meeting, I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who was accompanied by senior local authority representatives, that I am considering carefully all representations from areas potentially affected by the review of the air combat service support unit and will take them into account when making my decision. I expect to make a decision after the Easter recess.

Paul Farrelly: The Minister will know that RAF Stafford has a long and proud history as an important civilian and military employer in the north Staffordshire area. My granddad worked at RAF Stafford, and my cousin from Stafford joined the RAF as a pilot and flew Tornadoes in the first Gulf war. We are currently trying to attract much-needed government jobs into north Staffordshire for regeneration, so before my right hon. Friend the Minister makes his decision on RAF Stafford will he please consider carefully the demoralising effect of moving jobs not from south to north, but from north to south?

Adam Ingram: That concern must form part of our consideration, but my hon. Friend knows that operational effectiveness is the main driver in the process, which is one reason why we have examined the distribution of those units. We fully recognise the impact on local communities of closing particular stations, but we must face up to such tough decisions in government and consider what is right in terms of operations and the balance of the arguments. Many areas of the country have given loyal support and service to the armed forces, but over the years the armed forces' presence in those areas has contracted. I will take all my hon. Friend's points into account—indeed, I am doing so.

Alan Beith: In considering the future basing study, of which the possible closure of RAF Stafford and, indeed, RAF Bulmer are a part, will the Minister carefully examine the capital costs, which would take a very long time to pay off, in the investment appraisal? The alternative is to leave important facilities on sites where investment has already taken place.

Adam Ingram: I had a useful meeting about the Bulmer station with the right hon. Gentleman, where he made those points. I gave him a commitment that I would meet all local interests at each station that could be affected by the decision, and I have done just that. I am taking my time to trawl through all elements of the matter because of those stations' importance within their local communities.

David Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) for supporting RAF Stafford. Indeed, all Staffordshire MPs—Conservative and Labour—have been united in their support. Will the Minister acknowledge that RAF Stafford is the last surviving military presence in Staffordshire's county town, that it has accepted its responsibility for tri-service working, and that it has been militarily effective? Will he make a commitment that a military presence will remain in Stafford after the end of the review in April?

Adam Ingram: I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend has campaigned with his local authority colleagues on a cross-party basis. They have made a cogent case, which must be set against the operational imperatives that I referred to earlier and the overall balance of the decisions that must be taken. I note what he says, and he made the same points when he attended the meeting that I referred to earlier. After any decision is taken, I would obviously be willing to meet interested parties again to talk through the implications.

Shoeburyness Ranges

Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the future use of the new ranges in Shoeburyness.

Ivor Caplin: Shoeburyness provides a unique capability for test and evaluation activities and makes a vital contribution to national security. The ranges are included in the long-term partnering agreement that has been negotiated with Qinetiq for the delivery of a long-term test and evaluation capability to the Ministry of Defence. This agreement came into effect on 1 April 2003 and is intended to continue for 25 years.

Teddy Taylor: As the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in consultation with Thames gateway, has just announced the expenditure of £2 million on a study of access to and the use of Shoeburyness, can the Minister give an assurance that Southend borough council and Rochford council will be fully consulted if there are any proposals for development of unused land on the new ranges?

Ivor Caplin: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance because my Department is in discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about many land issues.

Balkans (British Deployment)

Rachel Squire: If he will make a statement on the work of British forces in the Balkans.

Geoff Hoon: British forces are deployed in both Bosnia and Kosovo under NATO command to provide a safe and secure environment there. They are assisting the international community in creating conditions that will support eventual self-sustaining security in the region.
	The purpose of the recent deployment of NATO's operational reserve force to Kosovo is to restore calm to the province and to prevent unrest from spreading to areas outside Kosovo. The 1st Battalion, Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment is providing the core of the battalion group. UK troops will conduct routine patrolling, the guarding of sites such as the UN mission and public order duties, as tasked by commander KFOR.

Rachel Squire: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the excellent and rapid response of our armed forces, particularly in dealing with the latest crisis in Kosovo? Does he agree that the announcement that Bowman has achieved its in-service date months ahead of schedule will be very good news for our troops in the Balkans and elsewhere, as it will improve their vital personal communications technology? Does he further agree that that is one example of where the Government have acted on lessons learned in previous Balkans operations and delivered with remarkable success?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. Dealing specifically with the Bowman development, we made it clear in the lessons learned exercise on Kosovo in 1999 that there had been shortcomings in our tactical combat radio capability. The Bowman system is designed to provide a modern, secure successor to Clansman, and I am delighted to announce that Bowman has today achieved its in-service date ahead of target.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Last week's announcement that further troops are to be sent to Kosovo only adds to the overstretch that our military already face. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will look carefully at the tasks that our armed forces are expected to undertake throughout the world to ensure that that overstretch is not added to; otherwise, a time will come when it bursts completely, which would be unacceptable?

Geoff Hoon: First, there is no overstretch. Secondly, this deployment does not add to any apparent overstretch, not least because the troops that were sent were held at very short notice. High-readiness forces are available there for precisely this kind of deployment, as the hon. Gentleman should know.

Jim Marshall: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about progress in Bosnia, and I am sure that we all welcome the improvement in its political and security situation. However, can he give any reasons why similar progress is not being made in Kosovo? Perhaps one reason is that NATO has not placed as much emphasis on the political situation as it should. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

Geoff Hoon: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend's conclusions. One difference between the two situations may be owing to no more than the passage of time. In both places, there were appalling incidents involving attacks on rival ethnic communities, but in Bosnia more time has passed and some of the wounds have healed, whereas in Kosovo, as we saw last week, those wounds are still very painful to the two communities. That is not meant in any way to suggest to my hon. Friend that we should not proceed in Bosnia and in Kosovo with a political and constitutional settlement that allows all the communities in the Balkans to live peacefully together.

Patrick Mercer: The Secretary of State will know that at the end of the year SFOR hands over to the EU in the Balkans. Can he tell us under whose command British troops will then fall—that of the EU or of those NATO forces remaining?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is usually slightly more precise than his question would suggest. As he will be aware, there has not yet been a decision by NATO to take the responsibility and to pass it across to an EU operation. The United Kingdom has indicated that, were that to happen, it would be willing to lead such an EU operation. As the arrangements develop and are decided, I will of course inform the House about the circumstances.

Nigel Beard: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is proving so difficult to arrest General Mladic and Radovan Karadzic?

Geoff Hoon: The short answer to that is that they are not telling us where they are. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that determined efforts are being made, and will continue to be made, to bring both those men to justice.

Warship Procurement

Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the progress of the procurement of new warships for the Royal Navy.

Adam Ingram: The Ministry of Defence has embarked on the largest procurement programme of new ships for the Royal Navy in many years, including orders for six Type 45 destroyers, three Astute class submarines and four landing ships dock, auxiliary.
	Future plans include the purchase of two new aircraft carriers, further orders of Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines, the joint casualty treatment ship, and the progressive replacement of existing Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service vessels through the military afloat reach and sustainability project.

Peter Luff: I am grateful for that detailed reply, but is the Minister confident that the planned pattern of future warship procurement and development remains appropriate in the light of increasingly asymmetrical, non-state warfare?

Adam Ingram: Yes, but everything must be kept under review.

Peter Mandelson: Alongside his plans for procurement, will my right hon. Friend disclose those for decommissioning? In particular, will he state what is intended for HMS Intrepid? Will it be scrapped in the UK as a matter of Government policy, and will that policy apply to all other Navy vessels in the future?

Adam Ingram: I understand my right hon. Friend's interest and the campaign in which he has become involved. I appreciate the strength and the merits of his case in terms of the total fleet—merchant and naval—that requires decommissioning in the years ahead. The best that I can offer is to hold a meeting with him and any interested parties to talk through his proposal so that it could help us to reach a decision on the matter.

Colin Breed: How can the Minister reconcile paying off four Type 42 frigates as surplus to requirements? If they are no longer required, why was HMS Nottingham, which is about to emerge from a £26 million refit, brought all the way back from Australia?

Adam Ingram: If I read the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) correctly, he suggested that, in one sense, we should not have any such ships because the asymmetrical threat means that we do not need that defence element. On the other hand, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) says that we should keep everything. We cannot live in such a world. We must judge what is appropriate in the light of future threats and make appropriate decisions at the right time. What happens to specific ships therefore becomes a matter of military assessment and judgment about what the size of the fleet should be, set against the new procurements that are coming on stream, to ensure that we have a significant naval force—indeed, perhaps the second biggest and best in the world.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend doubtless recalls the warm welcome given to the Government's warship building programmes in the areas that can reasonably expect to play a part in constructing the new vessels, such as my constituency and others on the River Clyde. He will also know that media speculation in recent weeks has added some uncertainty to that role, especially in relation to the aircraft carrier programme. Will he restate firmly the Government's commitment to proceed with the warship building programme in its entirety and thus reassure workers in Greenock and Inverclyde and elsewhere that the Government's commitment to British shipbuilding is as strong as ever?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend is another intrepid campaigner, not only on behalf of his area but of shipbuilding throughout the United Kingdom. We have a firm commitment to retaining design and construction in the UK shipbuilding industry. That is why the RAND report was commissioned. Its purpose is to examine how best we can position the UK shipbuilding industry to meet the growing demand that I outlined in my earlier answer. It will conclude shortly, and the findings will be published, with commercially sensitive information taken out. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for continuing to push for such an important industry.

Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister confirm that, such is the uncertainty that surrounds the future carrier programme, it is now said that the Ministry of Defence will become the prime contractor? Is he aware that such a situation flies in the face of all previous experience and advice? How does he intend to proceed with the contract? What are the timing implications as a result of the disastrous way in which the matter is being tackled?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman appears to want to talk down all the significant projects. We are considering a major procurement. Of course, when he was doing my job, he had a history of cutting and slashing defence expenditure. We have announced the largest shipbuilding programme for many years—I thought that he would welcome that.
	On aircraft carriers, the hon. Gentleman should know that stage three of the assessment is due to continue until spring. It is therefore reaching a conclusion. Rather than respond to press speculation, why does he not wait for the outcome? Work on the design is progressing and all the parties are actively engaged in discussions on that alliance strategy. That is the important way forward, as is the need to get it right, to keep to budget and, most important, to ensure that we get the necessary capability for the Royal Navy.

British Infantry

Tim Boswell: What assessment he has made of the adequacy and availability of British infantry to respond to additional urgent deployments.

Geoff Hoon: A number of British infantry units are routinely held in reserve, at very high readiness to deploy. That ensures that the Army always has prepared troops available to respond to additional urgent deployments. The effectiveness of those arrangements was demonstrated by our rapid response to the recent troubles in Kosovo. The spearhead land element was deployed to theatre there in less than 24 hours and undertook its first patrol the very next day.

Tim Boswell: While I agree with the Secretary of State that it was very welcome that the spearhead battalion was able to get to Kosovo so quickly and to be so effective, does he not agree that serious issues could arise in the slightly longer term in relation to the relief and rotation of forces, to resupply and, ultimately, to the ability to retain forces in the service under their present working conditions? Is not the reality that the thin red line of the British infantry has been stretched for a considerable time, and has in effect been running itself on red?

Geoff Hoon: Of course, I answered that question a few moments ago, but let me explain to the hon. Gentleman that this deployment of operational reserves is likely to be in theatre only for a matter of weeks, as I said to the House last week. Therefore none of the resupply or replacement issues that he mentioned will arise in this case.

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State referred to the increasing number of commitments that the armed forces face around the world. Does he agree that retention is of major importance, that the strength of the Army is still below what it should be, and that the Government should therefore be considering ways of increasing the number of soldiers? As his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), will know, one way of doing that would be to reinstate the 3rd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment, which would go a long way towards redressing the shortfall.

Geoff Hoon: I certainly admire the hon. Gentleman's persistence. I seem to recall that he asked precisely the same question at the previous Defence questions. He is right to emphasise the importance of retention and recruitment, and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we have seen a creditable improvement in performance in both those areas over the last year. With the hon. Gentleman's help and encouragement, that will no doubt continue.

Nick Hawkins: The Secretary of State will be aware that I have a very military constituency. Indeed, his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary, visited Army cadets there last Thursday. Does the Secretary of State recognise the great concern among the many service families in my constituency that those deployed to Iraq did not have the appropriate kit? Indeed, I am getting many letters from those families. Can he reassure them that in any future deployments of infantry, the kit will be there at the same time as the men?

Geoff Hoon: The kit was in theatre, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, as he will have read the National Audit Office report on the subject. I am sure that, when he responds to constituents expressing their understandable concerns, he will put those concerns into context, because it is clear from a series of reports on the deployment that, overall, this was an outstanding success, including—as the NAO noted—an outstanding logistical success. There were, however, deficiencies that must be addressed, and I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that they will be.

Nicholas Soames: In respect of the Secretary of State's earlier answer, the spearhead battalion is held specifically for the kind of task in Kosovo that he described. Will he accept the view that the Chief of the Defence Staff made quite plain last week to the Defence Committee that the overstretch currently being experienced by the armed forces as they undertake their extremely onerous task is such that, in these dangerous times, we would not be able to mount a similar operation to Telic until approaching the end of the decade?

Geoff Hoon: To be fair, as the hon. Gentleman usually is, the CDS went on to say that it would be possible to mount such an operation if we were to redeploy forces from other obligations and operations. That has always been the case, and it remains so.

Nicholas Soames: But given the scale and size of the obligations, do not the observations of the CDS reveal in the starkest terms the folly of cutting the trained strength of the armed forces from 194,600 to 182,800? That is a cut of 12,000 over seven years, the equivalent of nearly 15 infantry battalions.

Geoff Hoon: I will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman by telling him the number of cuts made in the trained strength when he was the armed forces Minister, but the margin was rather larger than the one he has just set out. I know that that is embarrassingly inconvenient for him, but the answer he gave when he was asked about that issue remains valid today, which is that assessments are made on a military basis of the requirement for forces in the light of the overall capabilities and equipment available to our armed forces at the time. That is the answer he gave, and I am delighted to repeat it.

Lindsay Hoyle: Has my right hon. Friend considered forming a Commonwealth regiment to ease the pressure? Is not that, or increasing the number of Gurkhas, a way forward on returning to the strengths of previous years?

Geoff Hoon: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is already significant recruitment from the Commonwealth. We have given this matter some consideration, but I am not necessarily sure that it is appropriate to try to replicate the arrangements under which Gurkhas are recruited to Britain's armed forces. I am content that elements from the Commonwealth join a variety of regiments and add their particular contribution in a number of different ways. That seems to me to be the best way forward.

Julian Brazier: Does the Secretary of State accept that for our armed forces to maintain their cutting edge, those in the infantry, like those in other parts of the services, must have two things: a lifestyle that their families can put up with in the long run and regular, high-intensity exercises? What is the tour interval for infantry battalions and what major exercises are planned to keep those excellent skills well honed over the next year?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that list today, but I can write to him with all those details. I am sure he is aware from his excellent contacts in the armed forces that proper leave was provided—for example, after the deployment to Iraq. That continues to be the case. Obviously, it is important that we maintain a proper balance between leave entitlement and regular high-intensity exercises as well as deployment on operations of the kind that have been so successful in Iraq. That balance must be continued if we are to retain the right people in our armed forces.

D-day Anniversary

Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on recent progress with plans to celebrate the 60th anniversary of D-day.

Ivor Caplin: I am confident that the organisation we have in place will ensure that the events in Normandy are properly organised, carefully planned and appropriate for the occasion.
	At the last Defence Question Time on 1 March, my hon. Friend asked about "Heroes Return". That was followed up by a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), whom I see in his place, on Irish citizens who served in the British armed forces during the second world war. I took the issues raised very seriously and undertook to investigate. Consequently, I am pleased to inform the House that in recognition of the unique circumstances that set Ireland apart from other countries, the Ministry of Defence and the national lottery's New Opportunities Fund have put in place special arrangements with the Royal British Legion to allow Irish veterans who volunteered for service in the British armed forces and are now resident in the Republic of Ireland to be included in "Heroes Return". I am sure that the whole House welcomes that outcome.

Shona McIsaac: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that news. I know that many families will appreciate being able to travel back for the celebrations.
	Will my hon. Friend take a little time to read the excellent coverage of "Heroes Return" and the D-day celebrations in the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph? I have the cuttings here for him if he wants to read them. The paper has been following former seaman Arnie Marshall in getting his money and the journey he will make back to Normandy. Will he wish Mr. Marshall well and praise the local newspapers that have been giving the initiative such excellent coverage?

Ivor Caplin: I certainly hope that Mr. Marshall enjoys his return to Normandy, which I am sure will bring back good memories for him. I am pleased to hear about the coverage of the D-day events and "Heroes Return" in the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph, which, I have to say, has not been high on my reading list recently. However, I detect that my hon. Friend will ensure that I read it in future.

Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that an estimated 10,000 British Normandy veterans survive 60 years after the event. When I secured an Adjournment debate on 25 February, it was estimated that about 3,000 of those had already made plans to visit Normandy in June. Since then, how many more have applied or expressed an interest in visiting the Normandy beaches? Will the Minister assure the House that they will have been given full information about the one-year passports available and how to claim, for part of their expenses at least, on the New Opportunities Fund?

Ivor Caplin: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on the last two points. At the last Defence questions, I also gave the freephone number for the Veterans Agency, which will handle calls and deal with any issues that veterans have. We think that the number travelling to Normandy that weekend will be between 5,000 and 10,000. That figure is likely to include carers and members of the families who will be accompanying veterans.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will know that my constituency was slightly ahead of the game on the heritage lottery fund, led by the sterling work of Ernie Innes, who sadly died recently. Will he place on record his condolences and thanks for the sterling work done by people such as Ernie, who give up so much of their time as volunteers, and set out what a strong example he was for many young people in constituencies such as mine, up and down the country?

Ivor Caplin: I had the privilege of visiting Chester earlier in the year, and I know of the work of the Chester and Wirral branch of the Normandy Veterans Association, which Mr. Innes founded. I pay tribute to his work and send the whole House's condolences to Mrs. Innes and her family at this difficult time. Certainly, "Heroes Return" is about bringing veterans and young people together to preserve the history of what happened in 1944 and 1945 and to pass on the baton of remembrance to future generations.

Andrew MacKinlay: I thank the Minister for his announcement in relation to the Irish veterans. In relation to what he has done today, I would use the words of Tim Healy, a famous former Member of the House, who said:
	"so long as water runs and grass is green Irishmen will always be grateful".
	It also allows us to do two things. One is to reinforce the important bilateral relationship with the Irish Republic—but, most importantly, it allows us to recognise that the 32 counties of Ireland are still a rich and proud reservoir of servicemen in our British armed forces today, which we must celebrate, welcome and do everything we can to encourage, bearing in mind particularly the sacrifice of one very brave Irish Guardsman in the recent Iraqi conflict.

Ivor Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for his sterling efforts on this matter. He raised the issue on 1 March, and he has constantly badgered me and other Ministers to make sure that we came to some conclusion. I am glad that he is pleased with the eventual outcome.

Afghanistan

Kali Mountford: If he will make a statement on the role of the armed forces in Afghanistan.

Geoff Hoon: The United Kingdom has about 460 personnel deployed to Afghanistan. About 360 of those are serving with the international security assistance force—ISAF—which is assisting the Afghan transitional authority to maintain security in Kabul. The remainder are serving with the US-led coalition, including 90 deployed to the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif. The team aims to assist in extending the authority of the Afghan Government in northern Afghanistan, to facilitate security sector reform and to create the conditions necessary to assist reconstruction.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that the whole House recognises the important work done by our forces in Kabul and in ISAF. Will he update the House further on the work of provincial reconstruction teams, and in particular on the protection of local personnel in elections and the protection of humanitarian aid? Is it not important that that work continues until local security and police forces are fully operational?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The United Kingdom Government strongly support the need further to expand the international security assistance force beyond Kabul, and particularly to demonstrate our concern that the security situation, especially in the south, should not deteriorate. We therefore believe that NATO's plan for ISAF progressively to assume control of groups of regional PRTs presents the best way forward for security across the country. For that reason, the United Kingdom has indicated its willingness to build on the success of our provincial reconstruction team by, together with partner nations, playing a leading role in the expansion of ISAF, particularly, in the first place, into northern Afghanistan.

David Heath: I think that everyone wants to celebrate the professionalism of the British forces who have been working in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, a strategy that would apparently bring peace and security to the area around Kabul while allowing the return of the warlords and drug growers and, indeed, the re-formation of the Taliban throughout the vast majority of Afghanistan surely raises more questions than it answers. When will we actually see the war that was started in Afghanistan finished?

Geoff Hoon: As I just said, that is not the strategy. We are seeking to extend the impact of ISAF beyond Kabul, to other parts of Afghanistan. The provincial reconstruction teams are already achieving that, but we recognise the need to expand their number and range of activities.
	I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of Afghanistan. Certainly there are security problems in the south, but elsewhere the security arrangements are very good. People are able to continue their ordinary way of life quite satisfactorily.

Keith Simpson: In answering this and earlier questions, the Secretary of State has rightly praised the role of our armed forces in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Iraq. I fear, however, that servicemen in Afghanistan and their families would have been amazed to hear what I imagine to have been an off-the-cuff comment from him. His statement that there is no overstretch in the armed forces flies in the face of all the evidence—the evidence of every previous Chief of the Defence Staff, most retired serving members of the armed forces and, indeed, those currently serving. What does he say to servicemen in Afghanistan and their families who rightly suggest that there is overstretch, and that it is getting worse?

Geoff Hoon: Perhaps the key indicator of overstretch, in the past at any rate, has been the retention rate. The hon. Gentleman is right: if there is significant overstretch, one of the consequences is that people believe they are no longer valued and leave the armed forces. The position today is the reverse, however. More people are staying for longer, essentially because they appreciate the conditions under which Her Majesty's armed forces are operating and the challenge with which they are being presented.

Formation Training Cycle

Crispin Blunt: If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the formation training cycle.

Adam Ingram: The formation readiness cycle is the means by which the Army prepares its six non-specialist brigades to meet commitments. It has served the Army well, giving the flexibility to deliver appropriately trained and prepared units to meet a variety of commitments, in accordance with the aims of the strategic defence review.
	As we explained in the recent White Paper, we are examining possible changes to the current and future capabilities of the armed forces and supporting infrastructure that are required to deliver a network-enabled capability. Part of this work will be to consider the effect that those changes will have on the formation readiness cycle.

Crispin Blunt: The truth is that the formation readiness and training cycle has not been able to work because the Government have taken the Army into war four times in the past five years. Does the Minister really stand by the Secretary of State's comment that there is no overstretch? Is not the truth that there is a huge hollowing out of training in the armed forces because the formation training cycle cannot work? That is why the Chief of the Defence Staff says that we will not be ready to man Telic again until 2008–09.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, which was covered in my reply. We need to examine the current operation of the formation readiness cycle to establish whether it is robust and meets the needs of the armed forces, and what should take its place if that is not the case. It is important for the whole training cycle, along with preparedness and deployability of forces, to accord with the proposed force restructuring. That will not happen overnight; it must be planned in the context of the changed force structure and the various requirements that will then confront us internationally and at home.
	I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, although I do not necessarily accept all of it. I hope that my explanation has been sufficiently detailed.

Troop Deployments

Jane Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the future deployment of UK troops stationed in Germany.

Adam Ingram: The 4th Armoured Brigade, currently based in Germany, has been earmarked for future deployment in Iraq, in November 2004, as part of Operation Telic. In addition, 26 Regiment Royal Artillery will deploy to Cyprus in September 2004. A number of other supporting units based in Germany are likely to deploy to Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Northern Ireland in the course of the next 18 months.

Jane Griffiths: Norman Mailer once wrote a book called "Why are we in Vietnam?", and I have been tempted to ask the Minister, why are we in Germany? However, I welcome his answer that there is to be more rational deployment, as I would describe it. When will the targets for redeployment finally be met, and when will the last British soldier leave Germany?

Adam Ingram: There are a number of questions involved, and the issue of why we are in Germany is fundamentally different from that in Norman Mailer's book, "Why are we in Vietnam?" I suggest that Europe is somewhat different from the situation that Norman Mailer was looking at. We have a considerable amount of infrastructure in Germany, as does the US, and we have very good relationships with our German allies. My hon. Friend asks when the last troops will leave Germany, but I do not think that I can give her an answer. We have met the commitment laid down in the strategic defence review to withdraw certain posts—that is, a reduction of 2,100 posts by 2005. That target has been met, with the exception of the return of two Royal Tank regiments, involving 600 personnel, who are due to return in the third quarter of 2005, when they will be based in Tidworth. The delay in their transfer is due to the fact that the required living accommodation is not yet ready.

Hugh Robertson: If the Secretary of State is right that there is no overstretch in the Army, why is it that the tour interval for Army infantry battalions in Germany, which was two years in the mid-1990s, is now down to nine months on average, and six months for some, including the 1st Battalion Irish Guards? They returned from Iraq, attended the state opening of Parliament, and were out in Northern Ireland a matter of months later.

Adam Ingram: The answer is that those troops have been busy. We would not deny that fact, and that has put pressure on them. It has certainly put pressure on certain key enabler functions—[Interruption.] I notice the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) shouting that there has been overstretch. However, it might be worth while examining some of the decisions that he took when he was Minister for the armed forces, and some of the problems that we are now having to correct.

Territorial Army

Bill Wiggin: How many Territorial Army personnel are members of civil contingency reaction forces.

Adam Ingram: There are 14 civil contingency reaction forces, each with a complement of 500 Territorial Army personnel. There are therefore 7,000 Territorial Army personnel who are members of the civil contingency reaction forces at any one time.

Bill Wiggin: If the armed forces are not overstretched, I do not understand why civil contingency reaction force troops are serving abroad when, I presume, they are supposed to be here to react to any civil contingencies. How can it possibly be the case, as I read in The Sunday Telegraph, that Private Kitulagoda, who was tragically killed in Kabul on 28 January, was a member of a CCRF?

Adam Ingram: Yes, he was a member. We recognise the circumstances of that tragic death and pay tribute to him for his sacrifice, and also to his family for what they have had to cope with. However, the hon. Gentleman misses the point— Members of the CCRF units are also Territorials and are expected to carry out their normal Territorial functions. They are not dedicated wholly to CCRF work. About 852 members of those units have at present been deployed to other duties and backfill has taken place, but we are satisfied that if there were a requirement to call out those units they would be fully manned.

Patrick Cormack: Is it not true that many Territorials are serving us very bravely in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are suffering financially in doing so? When is the Minister going to do something about that?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been looking at that issue and he hopes to announce some progress on it in the autumn.

Budget (Armed Forces)

Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the impact on the armed forces of the Budget statement on 17 March.

Geoff Hoon: I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement to the House on 17 March. His announcement of a further real-terms increase in defence spending reflects the Government's commitment to further investment in strong defence and to the continued modernisation of our armed forces.

Anne McIntosh: By how much does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to increase spending on the armed forces? What proportion of that will go towards medical cover for the services, so that my constituents will not have to seek private medical cover in order to discover whether they have a medical condition?

Geoff Hoon: Obviously, the amount of the increase that the Chancellor proposes will be decided through the normal process of discussions between him and the Departments, before he makes an announcement in July. However, as my hon. Friends know, that is in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who, in the unlikely event that they were elected, would cut defence spending in real terms. Indeed, they have made an announcement to that effect. Given that, as we all recognise, the armed forces are busy—they are engaged around the world and have to provide their own medical cover—it is astonishing that the Conservatives should propose to cut in real terms the amount spent on defence.

Angus Robertson: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity, in the context of the Budget, to confirm that there will be no negative impacts on the armed forces pension scheme, which is currently being updated? Is the Ministry of Defence undertaking, or has it completed, a study of the scheme's local economic impact, and in particular the impact of early retirement provisions in areas of significant military population, such as Moray?

Geoff Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a Bill dealing with modernisation of the armed forces pension arrangements is currently going through the House, and he will have the same opportunity as other Members to make a contribution to it. However, I can assure him and the rest of the House that this legislation is designed to improve the terms and conditions of the great majority of those on active service.

Iraq

Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of when all British troops will be withdrawn from Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: Our contribution to the multinational force in Iraq will continue for as long as the Iraqis wish, and until the Iraqis themselves are able to take responsibility for their own security. Changes in force levels will depend on the progress made in achieving our objective, not on arbitrary targets for force reductions.

Andrew Robathan: We know that our troops are doing an excellent job and we all pay tribute to them for that, but it looks like a pretty long-standing commitment. Among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) have spoken this afternoon of overstretch in the armed forces; moreover, there is no training cycle and the Territorial Army is being cut. If there is overstretch, does the Secretary of State recognise that we need either to cut commitments or to have more troops? Will he consider raising a couple of extra battalions, because that is what is needed in the current climate? Will he not simply keep saying that the Army is "busy", which seems to be his excuse?

Geoff Hoon: Fortunately, I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of our armed forces. It is simply not the case that no training is taking place; indeed, I recently saw soldiers busily engaged in training on Salisbury plain. If he examines the Army's activities throughout the country, he will see that it is busy preparing operations that soldiers are very successfully conducting.

International Terrorism

David Borrow: What role the armed forces are playing in combating the threat of international terrorism.

Geoff Hoon: The new chapter to the strategic defence review and the defence White Paper entitled "Delivering Security in a Changing World" set out the significant contributions that the armed forces can make to how the Government deal with international terrorism. These contributions range from defence diplomacy and stabilisation operations in tackling the conditions that promote terrorism to large-scale combat operations such as those in Afghanistan, which destroyed al-Qaeda's training camps and disrupted its leadership. They also include assisting other nations in developing their capacity to tackle terrorism.

David Borrow: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. In the light of the tragic events in Madrid, what steps is he taking to ensure effective co-operation by armed forces across Europe to combat terrorism?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that, in a few moments, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be explaining to the House the decisions taken at the European Council to improve co-operation and co-ordination. I know that that includes the appointment of an official with the specific job of ensuring greater and more effective co-operation between the Governments of the European Union.

Iraq

Bob Spink: How many Ministry of Defence personnel are serving in Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: There were 8,827 members of the United Kingdom armed forces and 67 Ministry of Defence civilian personnel serving in Iraq on 21 March 2004.

Bob Spink: We are seeing on the TV—even now—British troops under attack in Iraq. It is clear that they responded without firing a single bullet, demonstrating the superb professionalism and expertise, not to mention the great courage, of our armed services. Notwithstanding the obvious overstretch from which we are suffering, we must keep our nerve. Will the Secretary of State resist any siren voices to remove troops early from Iraq, which would threaten both that country's longer-term stability and the development of a democratic solution for the whole region?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observation that British troops are doing a superb job. This morning's incident was a typical example of the sort of incident with which British forces have to deal—not so much terrorist activities as maintaining law and order in the south. Our forces were removing squatters from a local government building that was required for other purposes. Members may have seen the television pictures showing the reaction to that. Our forces are providing an essential contribution to law and order in the southern part of Iraq, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his commitment to them.

Redundant Land

Paul Flynn: What recent assessment he has made of the scope for sale by the services of redundant land.

Ivor Caplin: The Ministry of Defence continually reviews the size and location of the sites on which it operates and disposes of any surplus assets as soon as practically possible. Indeed, in the past five years the Department has generated disposal receipts totalling about £1 billion. Further work is now under way to examine the scope for consolidating defence activity at a smaller number of more densely utilised locations, in order to achieve the optimum use of land and facilities. No decisions have been reached and each proposal emerging from this work will be subject to full consultation.

Paul Flynn: The Norwegian defence department is on a standstill budget and intends to expand its valuable work in peacekeeping and providing winter training facilities for many forces, including our own, by getting rid of a third of the land it occupies. That will provide a huge sum and put the land to more useful and profitable purposes. No Government Member would want to support the totally irresponsible policy of the Conservatives to have a standstill defence budget, but could we not emulate the Norwegians by finding some land that could be sold for the benefit of the environment and other services that require extra financing?

Ivor Caplin: I can assure my hon. Friend that we take our commitment to the environment very seriously indeed. I certainly recognise the points that he makes in respect of land sales and I will take them into account as we consider the review that is under way.

Eurofighter

Chris Grayling: If he will make a statement on the number of Eurofighters the RAF will purchase.

Adam Ingram: The United Kingdom remains committed to the Typhoon programme. Fifty-five aircraft are being delivered to the RAF under the tranche one contract. We are in the process of negotiating with partner nations and industry a sound contractual basis for the second tranche of 89 aircraft. I hope that we will be in a position to place an order as soon as possible.

Chris Grayling: The Minister will be aware of anxieties within the RAF that, during a period of pressure and busyness for the armed forces, it will be the service to bear the brunt of any future cuts. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Typhoon Eurofighter programme is sacrosanct and that the number of aircraft eventually ordered and delivered will be the originally envisaged total?

Adam Ingram: We are firmly committed to that. Negotiations have been proceeding with such intensity—to get the capability into service as soon as possible, and to ensure that we secure the right price. Tough negotiations are going on with the providers of the aircraft. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would expect anything different from the Government on that.

Kosovo

John Randall: If he will make a statement on the current situation in Kosovo.

Geoff Hoon: The situation in Kosovo is relatively stable after the violent outbreaks of last week. The UK fully supports NATO's response to the situation and calls on all parties to reject violence as we continue to build a peaceful, stable Kosovo.

John Randall: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Has he had any more intelligence about, or an assessment of, whether the violence instigated by the Albanians was spontaneous or co-ordinated beforehand?

Geoff Hoon: As I indicated to the House on Thursday in the defence debate, there is no specific evidence that the violence was co-ordinated or planned, but it suggests underlying tension between the two communities. Certainly, some organisations were ready and willing to take advantage of the tension, and that is something that we deprecate. It is important that we continue to take effective action against those organisations that would seek to undermine our efforts to promote constitutional and political settlement in Kosovo.

European Council/Libya

Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council that I attended in Brussels on 25 and 26 March. I wish to pay tribute to the excellent organisation and chairmanship of the Irish presidency and of the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, in particular.
	We met in the aftermath of the bomb attacks in Spain. We expressed our sympathy and solidarity with the Government and people of Spain. Co-operation in the fight against terrorism in Europe was stepped up after 11 September 2001 with the establishment of joint investigation teams, the freezing of terrorists' assets, the establishment of the European arrest warrant and a number of measures of co-operation with the United States and other countries. However, we recognised that not nearly enough had been done, especially on implementation of agreements, the provision of information to Europol and co-operation with third countries.
	At this European Council we set deadlines for the implementation of EU measures. We set out further measures on counter-terrorist legislation in all member states: confiscation of crime-related proceeds, creating a comprehensive database of forensic material, strengthening border controls, better intelligence sharing, transport security, and a number of other matters that are listed in the text that we adopted at the Council. We have appointed a single person to co-ordinate the Union's work in that area and are establishing a new counter-terrorism intelligence assessment cell so that, combined with effective police co-operation through Europol and co-operation among prosecuting authorities via Eurojust, we will have the means of assessing intelligence.
	I also briefed my colleagues in the European Council on my visit earlier on 25 March to Libya. I made clear to Colonel Gaddafi our support for Libya's decision to abandon voluntarily its weapons of mass destruction programmes, and our welcome for the full and transparent co-operation that Libya has subsequently given. Libya's actions in the past have caused grief and pain to many individuals and families, which we cannot forget. I raised the matters of Lockerbie and WPC Fletcher with Colonel Gaddafi, stressing the importance of the forthcoming visit to Libya by the Metropolitan police team investigating WPC Fletcher's murder. We shall stay in close touch with the families in both cases. If change in Libya is real, we should support it. It is the beginning of a process, and we should take it step by step, but I believe that a Libya free of weapons of mass destruction and with no links to terrorism is overwhelmingly in our interest and that it is right to pursue that dialogue and we will.
	What has happened over the past few weeks has reinforced the determination of all member Governments to equip a Union of 25 member states to be able to operate efficiently and effectively. As hon. Members will see from the conclusions, the Council took substantive decisions on growth, employment, research and development and on how to equip our citizens with the education, training and access to lifelong learning that are vital if Europe is to maintain its competitive edge. It is already clear that in a Europe of 25, and then of 28, decision making cannot remain as it is. The result would be paralysis of Europe and an inability to make progress in vital areas of co-operation that are emphatically in the British national interest. We need to be better able to set priorities, pass simpler laws, and have a completely different system for the day-to-day running of the European Union. That includes Governments setting the strategic direction in the European Council with a full-time chairman of the Council, chosen by Governments, to take forward that programme.
	In almost every field job creation, sustainable development, the environment, the fight against terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime we need to work together as one in the European Union. That is what the constitutional treaty is about and we shall seek to negotiate it to a successful conclusion under the Irish presidency. Britain will ensure that we keep control over our tax and social security systems, over the future of the UK abatement, over our own criminal justice system and over defence and foreign policy, as we said we would. Provided we do so, this treaty is right for Europe and right for Britain because, in today's world, particularly after the events of recent months, Europe needs to work more effectively to protect and enhance the lives of its people.
	The European Council gave its continued strong support to the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to bring about a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. This is a historic opportunity to end the long division of the island and we urge all the parties to seize it.
	The European Council also welcomed the recent positive political developments in Iraq and the UN Secretary-General's acceptance of the Iraqi governing council's invitation to help. It condemned the recent terrorist attacks in Iraq, which had as their aim maximising the number of civilian casualties. The European Council also expressed grave concern over the situation in the middle east.
	The European Council strongly condemned the recent ethnically motivated violence in Kosovo. All leaders locally must now take responsibility for the situation to ensure that there is no repetition.
	By negotiating within the European Union, we have succeeded in establishing common policies to deal with terrorism, crime and illegal immigration. We are taking forward a programme of economic reform long overdue. We have a common European stance to deal with the challenge of climate change. Last year, in the context of the World Trade Organisation negotiations, we achieved the biggest ever reform of the common agricultural policy not enough, but a substantial step forward. We are developing a common foreign and security policy to tackle the common global threats that we face. Our security, stability and prosperity depend on our successful membership of the European Union. Under this Government, it will not be put at risk.

Michael Howard: May I associate Conservative Members with the words in the European Union communiqué expressing sympathy and solidarity with the victims of the terrorist attacks in Madrid, their families and the Spanish people?
	We welcome the improved relations that both the British Government and the United States Administration have established with Libya, and of course we welcome the new attitude shown by Libya in giving up acts of terror and weapons of mass destruction. There are differing views about dealing with Colonel Gaddafi, and we have to handle these matters with sensitivity and care. Does the Prime Minister still think it was right to describe Colonel Gaddafi as "courageous" ?
	We welcome also the practical measures that the European Union is taking to combat the threat of terrorism. Those measures include the appointment of a counter-terrorism co-ordinator. If it is right to have one figure co-ordinating the fight against terrorism at the European level, why is not the same true nationally? May I urge the Prime Minister to look again at the need for a Minister for homeland security?
	Are there not important lessons to be learned from the agreement that has been reached on co-operation in the war against terrorism? Regardless of whether one agrees with each and every item, is not that an example of the way in which the countries of Europe can co-operate and work together to meet an urgent threat without constitutional change and without the need for a majority to impose its views on a minority?
	The Prime Minister himself once agreed that there was no need for a constitution. At the start of that process he said that the British way for Europe was not for a
	"single, legally binding document called a Constitution" ,
	so why does he now support a constitution that would give the European Union many of the attributes and trappings of statehood a President, a Foreign Minister and a new legal status? Why did he change his mind?
	The Prime Minister once agreed that the constitution was not essential for enlargement. In December, he said that
	"this is not constitutionally necessary in order for enlargement to take place" ,
	yet now he says that it is essential for enlargement. Why did he change his mind?
	The Prime Minister once said:
	"We have also ruled out other potentially damaging proposals. For example, others wanted to give the European Union explicit legal personality across all the pillars of the treaty. At our insistence, that was removed." [Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 314.]
	But in the draft constitution that provision is back, meaning that the EU would have legal status on measures on criminal justice and immigration. Why did the Prime Minister change his mind?
	The Prime Minister once said,
	"Our case is that"
	the charter of fundamental rights
	" should not have legal status, and we do not intend it to. We will have to fight that case." [Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 354.]
	In the draft constitution, however, the charter will be incorporated into EU law. Why did he change his mind? He once said that there was
	"no proposal, no desire or decision for a separate European military planning capability" ,
	then he agreed it. Why did he change his mind on that?
	Just last December, the Prime Minister told the House:
	"If it proceeds on the basis outlined by Prime Minister Berlusconi . . . criminal law will . . . remain the province of the nation-state namely, subject to decision-making by unanimity" . [Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1320.]
	Now, his spokesman says that there is "wiggle room", and his Minister for Europe says that Britain might look favourably on a common European arrest system.
	Why did the Prime Minister change his mind on that?
	As for timing, in December the Prime Minister's spokesman said that there "wasn't any great urgency", but now the Prime Minister wants ratification as soon as possible. Why did he change his mind on that? Could it, by chance, be connected with his desire to bounce Britain into the constitution before the general election? Nearly a decade ago, he promised:
	"I will never allow this country to be isolated . . . in Europe."
	Ten years later, we know what he meant by that: he meant never leading, always following others on Europe.
	Last week, the Prime Minister said that there was
	"widespread concern about the future of the UK's fishing industry".
	What a surprise! There is indeed widespread concern and there has been for many years now. The question is, why has the Prime Minister not done anything about it? Last week, he said:
	"I want the UK to give a lead in reforming the Common Fisheries Policy by pushing the European Union further down the path of managing fish stocks on a regional level".
	The constitution does indeed change the basis of the common fisheries policy it reinforces the Commission's role. Why did the Prime Minister not take advantage of the opportunity available to him when the constitution was being negotiated, not by giving the EU more control, but by giving this Parliament more control? Was not that another example of the Prime Minister's opportunism his readiness to jump on any passing bandwagon, only to jump off when the issue stops hitting the headlines?
	The Prime Minister says that his policy of following, not leading, gives him more influence, but this summit was meant to be about economic reform so where has that got to? The red tape continues his own Members of the European Parliament keep voting for even more the EU is not on track to meet the targets that it set at Lisbon, and 14 million Europeans are unemployed. So much for the Prime Minister's leadership.
	The Leader of the House once claimed that the constitution was just "a tidying-up exercise", but the Prime Minister told a Cabinet committee that the outcome of the Convention would be absolutely fundamental and would last for generations. The German Foreign Minister said:
	"We have a draft constitution that is worthy of the word historic."
	The Belgian Prime Minister describes it as the "capstone" of a "federal state".
	Let us remind ourselves of what the Prime Minister once said:
	"Where there is clear constitutional change . . . the case"
	for a referendum
	"is very strong . . . Many other countries do it. It's entirely sensible if you're deciding how a country is governed".
	The constitution will indeed decide how this country is governed. The Government have held 34 referendums, including one on a mayor for Hartlepool and another on a mayor for Sedgefield. Soon, there will be a 35th on a mayor for Ceredigion, and three on regional government are to follows this autumn, but on this historic issue he refuses the British people a say.
	Let me make it clear: any proposal for a new constitution must be put to the British people. At least seven other member states of the European Union are giving their people a say. The Irish Government will trust the Irish people; the Dutch Government will trust the Dutch people; the Danish Government will trust the Danish people; and the Portuguese Government will trust the Portuguese people. Why will the right hon. Gentleman's Government not trust the British people? The Prime Minister says, trust him: we say, trust the people.

Tony Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right that there are two differing views on handling Libya and he holds them both. It is better that we continue sensibly, and with our eyes open about Libya's record, on the path of constructive engagement that, since December, has already yielded a substantial amount of benefit and progress in respect of Libya's chemical and nuclear weapons.
	On counter-terrorism here, there is a security co-ordinator, Sir David Omand, and there is a politician in charge the Home Secretary.
	The constitution is not essential for enlargement to take place, but it is essential to make it work, which is what is important. A Europe of 25 will not be able coherently to take decisions unless it reforms the way in which it works.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that nothing had been done in respect of economic reform. I think that he is wrong. He referred to the number of unemployed people in Europe. It is true that there are a large number far too many but there are 6 million fewer than there were a few years ago before the onset of the Lisbon process. I remind him that in Britain there are 1.75 million more people in jobs and that there has been the biggest reduction in unemployment since 1975.
	On the details of the constitutional treaty, I make it clear again that we will protect each one of the red lines that we have set out on tax, social security, our abatement, foreign policy and defence, and our criminal justice system. Our ability to determine those matters is part of our nationhood, and we shall insist on them.
	I shall also deal with some of the myths that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. He criticises us over the European Union arrest warrant. There already is a European Union arrest warrant. He criticises us over the common fisheries policy. I remind him that it was his Government who negotiated the terms of the CFP.
	The one area that I noticed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not raise was that of asylum, although he has been speaking about it recently most recently on "Today", when he accused us of having to give in to EU standards of asylum and of being forced to accept quotas on asylum from the EU. It is odd that he did not repeat that charge today in the House of Commons. The reason he did not, of course, is that he knows perfectly well that we have an opt-in to any measure on asylum that we want. It is absolute rubbish to suggest that Europe can determine our immigration and asylum laws. We secured that, whereas his Government failed to do so during the Amsterdam negotiations in 1997. Let us hear no more of the Conservative party trying to run the issue of asylum into the issue of the European Union.
	Let us make it clear again that, on crime, the treaty is not acceptable at present. That is why we will not accept anything that overturns habeas corpus, trial by jury or sentencing. Where there are, however, cross-border issues to be dealt with, we will be perfectly happy to deal with them.
	I shall deal with another myth that the right hon. and learned Gentleman expounded today: that the charter of fundamental rights somehow enlarges the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The terms of the treaty expressly state that it does not do so.
	As a result of what we managed to negotiate, it is absolutely clear that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence, and that nothing that is inconsistent with NATO can be done through the EU.
	Other myths, to mention some of the others that the Conservative party has been trotting out recently, are that we would give up our UN Security Council seat not true; that we would surrender control over our borders not true; and that there would be a European diplomatic service to replace the British Foreign Office not true. The Conservatives want to fight the issue on myths, not on the reality of what is proposed.
	Let us deal with some of the other myths not always mentioned by the Conservative party [Hon. Members: "Answer the questions."] I am indeed answering the questions. There are the myths that we are to be told to switch to driving on the right; that the Queen is to be stripped of her powers; or that the Germans are to take over our nuclear weapons. [Interruption.] Yes, it is fantasy rubbish, and it comes from the Conservative party.
	There is now a clear divide between the two parties. The Opposition's position, announced a few days ago, is that, if elected, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will re-open negotiations on the treaty. Indeed, he disagrees not just with the contents, but with the very idea of a constitution, so if the rest of Europe agrees it, he will renegotiate it out of existence.
	What referendum did the right hon. and learned Gentleman give people over the Maastricht treaty? He went into the Lobby to vote against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. He would have to renegotiate the constitutional treaty with every other member of the European Union, and now, instead of 15 members, we have 25. Which Government from the other 24 supports the position of having no constitution? Even if we expand Europe so that there are 28 countries, not 25, which of the 27 agrees with his position? None. He said the other day on "Today" that he thought that the German Conservatives might agree with his position.

Michael Howard: Some of them.

Tony Blair: Ah, "Some", he says. This is what the leader of the German Conservative party said a few days ago:
	"Without the European constitution, Europe doesn't have a future",
	which is not a ringing endorsement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position, is it? Let me read what the German Conservatives say in their manifesto for the European Parliament:
	"We strongly support the draft European Constitution".
	So he does not have the support of the German Conservatives. What other party in Europe supports his position?
	We now know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would renegotiate the treaty without the support of any other Government in the EU, despite the fact that he would need the agreement of every other Government to make that stick. What would he do? He would either have associate membership, as urged on him by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who represented the Conservative party on the Convention, or he would have to back down and we would face humiliation. Let no one forget that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Home Secretary, and when there was the great non-co-operation over BSE do we remember that? he made a British proposal in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, but then had to go along to the Council and veto it on the basis that he was not co-operating. That is what the Opposition would reduce our country to.
	We will protect our essential national interests and no positions will be taken that are inconsistent with that. However, our national interest also means accepting that a Europe of 25 must work more effectively. That position between constructive engagement and renegotiation of our essential membership of the European Union is the dividing line between the two political parties. That is a debate in the country and in the House to which we look forward with enthusiasm.

Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and the underlying sense of regained political momentum that underpins it at a European level. That is particularly encouraging after the recent stalls and setbacks, both those of a political nature and those arising from the dreadful terrorist atrocities in Spain.
	On Libya, we support the Prime Minister and the Government in their initiative. The House will understand that those of us who view such matters from a Scottish perspective will never allow the dreadful memories and images of Lockerbie to fade. It was significant last week that, despite the understandably divided opinions among those who were most directly affected by that dreadful event, a degree of welcome and understanding was none the less expressed about the need to establish dialogue. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is not good enough to will the ends from the sidelines, only to carp and criticise about the means?
	In his discussions with Gaddafi, did the Prime Minister touch on the vexed issue of possible weaponry sales to Libya? Was any level of detail entered into in those discussions concerning, for example, the types of systems involved and the use to which they might be put?
	On terrorism generally, a very broad welcome must be given to the declaration on combating terrorism and, as he is a former leader of the European Liberals, to the appointment of our friend Gijs de Vries as the first terrorism co-ordinator. We wish him every success. The Prime Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats, both in Brussels and here in Westminster, supported the European arrest warrant at the time of its introduction not all did so, it must be remembered but I hope that he recognises that it is important to continue to stress that that measure and several others have been fast-tracked since the atrocious events of 11 September. Will he bear in mind throughout the need to keep a judicious balance between the safety of European citizens and their civil liberties?
	In broad terms, EU co-operation on the crackdown on financing terrorism and on shared intelligence and existing legal instruments deserves support at that level, but at this level, in Westminster, we do not feel that the rushed responses of the Home Secretary limiting the right to trial and appeal, limiting access to evidence and lowering the burden of proof deserve support. That will remain our position.
	Finally, on the fresh impetus that has now been given post Convention to the work on the constitution, we have always argued that a constitution is necessary and welcome because it will define and make clear the limits of European Union power. Indeed, as somebody who is unequivocally pro-European, I have always been puzzled about why somebody of a more Eurosceptical disposition a perfectly honourable view to take is not more in favour of a defined constitution that allows us to know the limits and legitimacy of the European operation and the transparency and accountability of those limits, and builds in an appeal process for the individual citizen to follow when they feel that the European Union, through whichever of its component institutions, is overstepping the mark.
	The constitution is necessary to help to build in stability, not least after enlargement. There has been a bit of an ongoing cultural revolution about Europe, which never seems to end, and a period of stability would be welcome. The Government's red lines are welcome, and we continue to endorse them, as the Prime Minister knows. Looking back to the experience on Maastricht on behalf of our party, I spoke and voted in favour of a referendum at the time, and noted those who did not find the idea of a referendum at all attractive or favourable surely, if the new revised constitution that emerges from the further discussions that are to take place involves constitutional implications, as the present one does, a referendum would be the right way to go.
	I think that the Prime Minister would agree that consistency is a good thing in these matters. Will he assure us that, whether on Libya or the need for a referendum on the eventual constitution, all of us as party leaders should avoid the trap of saying one thing in one place, and another thing in another?

Tony Blair: First, in respect of Libya, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement of support, for which I am grateful. In respect of anything to do with weapons sales or military and defence co-operation, as I said last week, I have appointed General Searby to handle these issues for us. Obviously, this has to proceed in a very careful way, and we are at the beginning of the process.
	It may be worth pointing out to the House that part of the reason why I felt that it was possible to go to Libya last week and, in a sense, make a formal statement of support for the process is what Libya has done between its decision in December and now. It has taken measures that augur extremely well for the future they must be maintained, but none the less they are specific for example, providing unrestricted access to facilities and giving full answers to the questions that have been posed. The Libyans have actually volunteered information that has allowed us to know the proper extent of their chemical and nuclear weapons programmes; they have signed the additional protocol to the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, which allows intensive, even intrusive, inspections; they have ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty; they have deposited the instrument of ratification for the chemical weapons convention; they have made a full declaration to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons of their production of chemical weapons; and they have facilitated the removal from Libya of highly sensitive documentation and literally tonnes of WMD-related equipment. As a result of those changes, we felt that going to Libya was the right thing to do.
	In respect of the European issues, the right hon. Gentleman and I will probably disagree about terrorism and legal powers. The arrest warrant is a necessary part of ensuring that we make Europe work more effectively. Of course, it is right to say that the constitutional treaty makes it expressly clear for the first time that the only competencies that the European Union will have are those that are conferred on it specifically by member states, which is an important development and change.
	The reason why I disagree so strongly with the Conservative party about a full-time chairman of the European Council a proposition, incidentally, opposed by the federalists in Europe is that it gives the Council an opportunity to draw up a coherent agenda, which a rotating six-month presidency simply will not do. A full-time chairman is an important measure for efficiency in a European Union of 25.

Joyce Quin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and indeed his actions, particularly with regard to Libya.
	Amid the hysteria of some sections of the press and of the Leader of the Opposition, does he welcome the editorial in Saturday's Financial Times, which describes the draft treaty as
	"giving clearer decision-making procedures; a clarification of who does what in the EU; and a greater involvement for national Parliaments",
	and
	"that it therefore presents the EU as it is . . . and not as the superstate' of eurosceptic myth"?
	Does he agree that exaggerating the effect of the constitution does British citizens a disservice?

Tony Blair: Yes. That is exactly what the Conservative party said about the Amsterdam treaty and the Nice treaty, which were also supposed to be the end of Britain as we know it. Those who are now in charge of the Conservative party were the Eurosceptics who caused such difficulties for the previous Government on Maastricht. If we attempted to renegotiate the essential terms of Britain's membership of the European Union, it would be a disaster for this country, and it would put at risk all the gains that Britain has made in the European Union.

Peter Tapsell: Did the Prime Minister discuss with his European colleagues the excellent suggestion, which he is reputed to have made to President Bush, that monitors from well-disposed countries should be interposed by agreement between Israel and the Palestinian state to stop further death and destruction in that area?

Tony Blair: I did not discuss those proposals specifically. If there is a chance of getting the process restarted, however, we are looking at how we ensure that the Palestinian Authority can take security measures that give confidence to everybody that what they say they are doing on security is actually done, so that next time there is a suicide bomber or a breach of security, there can be some clear way to determine whether the Palestinian Authority are complicit as they say they are not or not. We will continue to discuss that matter not only with the Americans but with the Israeli Government and others.

Dennis Skinner: It will come as no surprise to the Prime Minister if I say as a long-standing opponent of the Common Market and the European Union, even when the Tories were in power and voting for it that we need this argument like a hole in the head. I am amazed that this matter has been brought forward once again. Is it not indicative that yesterday the author of the new constitution, Giscard d'Estaing, was defeated in the French elections? He has been put out to pasture; I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the best thing we can do with this issue is to put it into the long grass, as well.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend has been entirely consistent on this issue from the very outset, but I am afraid that I have to disagree with him. One need only sit round the table with 25 other states in the European Union to realise that it simply cannot work without changes to the way in which it operates.

Peter Lilley: But if there were to be a referendum, does the Prime Minister think that he would win?

Tony Blair: I believe that the vast majority of people in this country think it is sensible that we remain part of the European Union. [Interruption.] No, no. Let us be clear about this. The position that has now been adopted by the leader of the Conservative party is that the Conservatives want to reopen negotiations on the constitution, that they disagree with many of its contents, and that they oppose the idea of having a European Union constitution. So in any debate that takes place in the country, the choice is absolutely fundamental: it is between those who want to renegotiate Britain's essential terms of entry and those who believe that Britain's future lies in Europe. I believe that that is a debate that we can and will win.

Andrew Miller: I think that all parties would welcome my right hon. Friend's statement regarding counter-terrorist legislation, the database of forensic material and better intelligence sharing. However, does he agree that the matching pair to go with those measures is an acceptance that there must be a strong European agreement based on principles such as those in the Data Protection Act 1998 to ensure that privacy and data protection are also dealt with on a pan-European basis?

Tony Blair: In any actions that are taken, it is important that we carefully balance civil liberties with the need to take strong measures against terrorism. Of course, those measures will essentially remain our decision. In so far as we co-operate with other countries in Europe, it is of course important to respect people's civil liberties.

Teddy Taylor: Has the Prime Minister closed his mind completely to the possibility of a referendum on this important treaty? Does he not think that it would create a new sense of unity in all the parties if he let the people decide on this important issue? On a detail, can he at least give me a promise that he will not sign the treaty if any attempt is made to remove article 59 on page 32, which for the first time since the treaty of Rome makes legal provision for countries to withdraw from the European Union if they wish to?

Tony Blair: What the hon. Gentleman says in the last part of his question is one of the advantages in making that quite specific. Of course, countries can withdraw from the European Union if they want to. That is precisely what the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues in the Conservative party want. I understand and respect that; we simply disagree about it. In respect of the referendum, my position remains unchanged.

Frank Field: Is not the real reason why the Prime Minister will not commit the European constitution to the people the fact that he knows that he would lose that vote?

Tony Blair: No. I believe that in the end, faced with a decision on whether to remain part of the European Union, which is in effect the position [Interruption.] I am afraid that the Conservative party will have to

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is getting to the stage where every time the Prime Minister speaks, certain Members wish to shout him down. There is a danger that I will go on to the next statement and hon. Members will not get an opportunity to question the Prime Minister.

John Maples: Can the Prime Minister think of a single country in Europe where the news of the European Union's failure to reach agreement on the constitution last December was met with public dismay?

Tony Blair: Across Europe, there was an understanding that we needed to have a change in the European Union, but there is no doubt that some countries for example, Poland and Spain had genuine difficulties with some of the issues. However, I remember being told on 15 December by the Conservative party indeed, possibly by the hon. Gentleman that we should have followed the lead of the plucky Poles and said no to the constitution. It was never the case that anyone else in Europe would say no to the whole document because everybody who is trying to make the EU work knows that a Europe of 25 and perhaps subsequently Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey cannot work in the same way as it does now.
	If we want Europe to be effective, we must make the changes. The Conservative party wants not only to renegotiate the terms of the treaty but to renegotiate so that there is no constitutional treaty. That is its position. The reason why I say that that would lead to a fundamental reconsideration of our terms of membership is that no other country in Europe is in that position. We would thus be left with either a fundamental pledge doubtless what many people in the Conservative party want or a swindle because people will not get a fundamental renegotiation of the treaty.

David Winnick: Most would support the Prime Minister's visit to Gaddafi for the reasons that he stated. However, is it not the case that the Libyan regime is brutal, denies all forms of rights and hunts down dissidents, even when they have fled abroad? Did my right hon. Friend discuss human rights with Gaddafi, and what was Gaddafi's response?

Tony Blair: We certainly did discuss human rights, democracy and freedom. I expressed my clear view that, ultimately, the best guarantor of our security is the spread of those values the rule of law, human rights and democracy. I do not pretend that things in Libya are as they should be but when a country that has been developing chemical or nuclear weapons for a significant period of time offers voluntarily to give them up, we should be prepared to help it to do that and then to help it develop in a way that hopefully moves towards human rights and democracy.

Edward Leigh: Was there any discussion in the European Council or in its margins about financial accountability and management? Does the Prime Minister recall that, last year, the Comptroller and Auditor General asked the Government to apply pressure to ensure that financial accountability was improved in the 10 new states?
	Closer to home, was there any discussion about the fact that the European Commission's accounts have been qualified every year for the past nine years? Before we load more functions on the European Commission, does the Prime Minister agree that we must improve its financial accountability?

Tony Blair: I agree that the Commission's financial accountability should be improved and we are working for that. The same is true of the 10 new member states.

Alice Mahon: The Prime Minister will know that the Secretary-General of NATO and senior UN officials laid blame for the latest outbreak of violence in Kosovo firmly at the door of Albanian extremists who want separatism. Three thousand more Serbs have lost their homes, adding to the 200,000 who already live in camps in Serbia and Montenegro. More churches and monasteries have been attacked, adding to the 154 that have been burnt out in the past five years. When will Europe arrest those criminals? Let us have a genuinely peaceful settlement in Kosovo.

Tony Blair: Europe is taking the measures that can be taken to prosecute those responsible. I agree with my hon. Friend that there can be absolutely no support for or tolerance of what we have seen in Kosovo. It is important to recognise that, compared with our position a few years ago, substantial progress has been made, but I am afraid that it will take a long time for some of the ethnic disagreements that have marked the Balkans for a long time to be properly cured. It will probably happen only when those countries and parts of Europe see their future in the European Union.

Angus Robertson: At a time of unprecedented crisis in the fishing industry and unparalleled mismanagement of the common fisheries policy, is not it noteworthy that the Prime Minister did not mention fisheries in his statement? Will he confirm that the Government are still prepared to enshrine fisheries as an exclusive competence in the EU constitution and that Scottish voters will have no say in the matter in a referendum?

Tony Blair: There is not a change to the commons fisheries policy, but it is important to understand that it would be a disaster for the fishing industry if Britain were to withdraw from the policy. We would then be completely unable properly to organise the destiny of our fishing industry, because the rules that no longer applied to us would no longer apply to other member states. That is why no Government have responsibly advocated or done such a thing. We know the reasons for the problems in the fishing industry: they have arisen because of the overfishing of certain areas for a long period, not because of the common fisheries policy. It would be a cruel deception to tell the people working in the industry that if we withdrew from the policy we would somehow be able to protect their jobs. We would not.

Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to publish a plain person's guide to the draft treaty and, in an appendix, provide a comparison between the extension of powers in this draft treaty and those in the Maastricht treaty, to expose the synthetic indignation and fury of the Leader of the Opposition, who was implacably opposed to a referendum on Maastricht but who seems to think it essential to have one now?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a sensible idea for us to publish a guide so that people can see exactly what is in the treaty, and so that we can debate the matter as the treaty goes through the House of Commons. He is also right to say that the previous Conservative Government agreed huge extensions to qualified majority voting. The Single European Act was probably the biggest such extension, and that was a perfectly sensible thing to do. I have to point out, however, that a major part of the present problems in so far as there are problems in this regard come from the working time directive, and it was the Leader of the Opposition who, as Employment Minister, spent a significant period of time in charge of that.

Angela Browning: The Prime Minister said that he hoped to sign the treaty by the end of June. Is there not, therefore, a certain sense of urgency surrounding this matter? When are we going to see a Bill before the House? Will it be before the next Queen's Speech or after it?

Tony Blair: We shall have to wait until the constitutional treaty is agreed. Once that has happened, we shall proceed in the normal way.

Kate Hoey: In his discussions with the leader of Libya, did the Prime Minister raise the question of that leader's continued support for Mugabe in Zimbabwe? What discussions did he have about that support now being withdrawn so that we might begin to influence some of the African leaders to take a much more robust stance against that dictator?

Tony Blair: As a matter of fact, we did have a discussion on Zimbabwe, in which I made plain our disagreement with things that Colonel Gaddafi has said. I hope that, as one part of the dialogue that we have with Libya, we can change his mind on that issue. The position that the Libyans adopt at the moment is not right. It is based on a false understanding of the situation, which is that Britain is somehow not prepared to help the resettlement of the farming issue. We are prepared to help in that way; we have set aside money for the United Nations Development Programme to administer, but we are not prepared for that money to go to Mugabe's henchmen. That would be corrupt and wrong. Libya is not in the same position as us at the present time, but I hope that it will be possible, partly through this dialogue, to change minds.

Eric Forth: The Prime Minister said that he wanted to maintain Europe's competitive edge. What is that edge?

Tony Blair: Europe is a highly competitive economy.

Eric Forth: What?

Tony Blair: I am sorry; I have no doubt that Europe has its economic problems, like lots of other places. But the notion that Europe as a whole is a failed economy is completely absurd. The fact is that the European Union single market will be the biggest commercial market in the world. The right hon. Gentleman is unable to accept anything good about the European Union at all. He and many other Conservative Members have a position on the European Union that everything in Europe is wrong and that it has nothing to offer. Actually, it has a great deal to offer in terms of the economy, security and political influence.

Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some of us were in the European Parliament in 1979, and we remember the attitudes of the Conservatives at that time. They have not changed one iota. They were so extreme in 1979 that none of the right-wing parties in Europe wanted anything to do with them, and they had great difficulty forming any partnerships whatever. This new constitution is a plus for the 25 European Union countries, and it also addresses traditional British concerns. I very much welcome it.

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for her support and I believe she is right.

John Bercow: Given that the Prime Minister told the House on 18 June 1997 that the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam would have "real teeth", and that the Foreign Secretary said on 21 May last year that in practice the protocol had proved unsatisfactory and that they are now trying to dream up a new blue print for the future, has the Prime Minister the good grace to admit that his gung-ho optimism in June 1997 was misplaced? Alternatively, can he identify three examples of successful legislative repeal under the terms of the protocol?

Tony Blair: The constitutional treaty will make the situation better because, for the first time, there will be the ability, if a third of national Parliaments wish it, for the European Union and the Commission to be made to reconsider any proposal. That, precisely, is where the teeth are. I agree that we have taken a long time to get round to it that is absolutely true but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is surely better to have such a provision than not to have it.
	Of course, if we adopted the position that the hon. Gentleman's party has outlined, we would be left without the constitutional treaty at least Britain would be; I think other countries would simply move ahead without us and the provision that allows, for the first time, national Parliaments a proper say in the issue of European legislation.

Gisela Stuart: When the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) advised against speaking with one voice in one place and with another in another, I wondered whether that same discipline applies to his Members in the House and in the European Parliament when they talk about Europe.
	The Prime Minister referred in his statement to the changes in the Council of Ministers. As he goes on to improve the draft that was handed to him last summer, will he pay attention to whether the institutions of Europe are fit for purpose? I am not entirely convinced that the way in which either the Commission or the European Parliament works is fit for purpose as it stands.

Tony Blair: First, I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she did as a Convention member, which was excellent, particularly on the praesidium. She is also right in saying that neither the Commission nor the Council as they currently function will be able to carry out their work as effectively as they need to. That is precisely the reason for the change. If anything, the constitutional treaty needs to go further in the direction of a more streamlined Commission and to make it absolutely clear that the Council of Ministers is the body that will set the agenda for the European Union.
	One reason why the treaty is so important if it were only possible to debate what is in the treaty as opposed to what is not is that with a rotating presidency whereby a different country takes over the presidency of the European Union every six months, owing to the fact that 10 new countries, many of which are very small, are about to join, the EU simply would not be able to function. Already round the table are 25, or 28 for some discussions, so the impossibility of the situation comes home very clearly, which is one reason why we need the treaty.

Andrew Selous: Does the Prime Minister believe that article 3 of the European convention on human rights should be amended so that the provisions of the Geneva convention can be complied with provisions that give the countries concerned the right to return refugees regarded as a danger to security?

Tony Blair: Of course, that convention is not an issue to do with the European Union, as the hon. Gentleman will know, but I think it is important that we balance the right of those people who are genuine refugees who seek asylum in this country with the interests of national security. That is one of the issues that we will be thinking about very carefully when we come to look at new laws in relation to terrorism.

Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for every citizen in this country we want and need a European Union that works efficiently and effectively whether that is on jobs, terrorism, security or anything else and that the rule book is no longer up to the task? We need the new constitution to ensure, in an enlarged Europe, that the EU works for every man, woman and child in our country.

Tony Blair: That is exactly why we need it.

Andrew Mitchell: Will the Prime Minister bear it in mind that many of us who strongly support his stand on terrorism and on giving the opportunity of democracy to the people of Iraq are concerned that he has set his face so firmly at this point against a referendum on the European constitution, although the issues are potentially far more significant than anything entailed in the Maastricht treaty, with the two opt-outs negotiated for Britain?

Tony Blair: Quite simply, I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman in relation to Maastricht and the Single European Act. Precisely the same points were made about the Amsterdam treaty back in 1997, when we were told that it would mean the end of Britain as a nation state and it meant no such thing.

Jane Griffiths: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on going to Libya as he has done? As the UK's relations with Libya develop, as we all hope they will, may I ask him and his colleagues to listen to the voices of the Libyan exiled community in the UK, many of whom have worked over the years at BBC Monitoring in my constituency, providing information on that country?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes a fair point.

John Redwood: Will the Prime Minister agree that it would be far better to delay legislation in the House until the results of the referendums in the free countries of Europe on this subject are known? Indeed, would it not be better to delay it until the general election, so that we can have a vote to sort it out? His journey might not then be necessary.

Tony Blair: All that I can say is that the 10 new member states of the European Union are all proud nations, many of which have effectively just achieved nationhood as a result of their liberation from old-style communist rule. It is extremely important to recognise that each one of those 10 countries is in favour of having this constitutional treaty. It is not true that a majority of countries are having referendums actually, a majority probably are not. What is important, however, is that we have this debate on the basis of what the treaty actually says. In the course of that debate, it is important that people such as the right hon. Gentleman whose view I respect in terms of it being very clear, but the fact is that he would renegotiate our essential terms of membership express their view. That debate is well worth having, but we can have it in the House.

James Purnell: On the middle east and Libya, does the Prime Minister see a prospect of similar progress on Syria and Iran, which would be key to unlocking progress on the road map between the Palestinians and Israelis? Did he notice that the Leader of the Opposition barely even mentioned the middle east? Is that not symptomatic of his knee-jerk opposition to and obsession with Europe and all things European?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that the position of Syria and Iran will be important, particularly if we manage to restart some process to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It will be important that they co-operate fully, as they should be doing in any event, in stopping all sponsorship and help towards terrorist organisations. One thing that is for sure is that the single biggest obstacle at the moment to real movement on the middle east is the existence of those terrorist groups, financed and sponsored from abroad.

George Osborne: How did the Prime Minister get on with Spanish Prime Minister-elect Zapatero? Has he convinced him that the Iraq war was not a war based on lies? Has he changed the rather unflattering and unrepeatable assessment of him by some of the Spanish Prime Minister-elect's closest advisers?

Tony Blair: Probably not. There will be a disagreement between us and the new Spanish Government on Iraq. I believe that our position on Iraq was right, and in any event, whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict and the war, it must surely be the duty and the interest of every single one of our countries to make sure that we constitute Iraq as a proper, stable and democratic country. The Iraqi people are the last who want us to quit before the job is done.

Organised Crime

David Blunkett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on our strategy to tackle organised crime.
	Although crime has fallen, a substantial challenge remains to turn round those aspects of criminality that threaten the very fabric of our society. The success of the police and other law enforcement agencies should not lead to complacency. We know that a great deal still needs to be done to tackle specific areas of criminality, including organised crime.
	Organised crime is big business. It costs around £40 billion a year. Its effects are corrosive. It corrupts society and spreads fear and intimidation. It operates across frontiers and reaches into every neighbourhood, especially some of the most deprived parts of our country. Lives are destroyed by drugs, smuggling and prostitution. It is a major contributor to low-level crime, abuse and exploitation. It exploits every technique of modern technology. It uses identity theft, the internet and modern secure communications. Such criminals employ many of the same methods as those who run terrorist networks. Indeed, there is clear evidence that many terrorists seek to finance their activity through organised crime.
	That means that, now more than ever, we need to make a step change in our response, so we are setting a clear objective of year-on-year reductions in the harm that organised crime causes the United Kingdom and its citizens. We will make the UK one of the most difficult environments in the world for organised crime, and we will work closely with our partners to undermine its international effects. Today's White Paper sets out our strategy to achieve those goals. We will create a powerful new agency, the serious organised crime agency. We will take new powers to disrupt activity and to convict those responsible, and we will enhance our capability to stay one step ahead.
	Let me deal with those points in turn. I announced to the House last month our intention to create the agency, and since then we have consulted on how it should operate. It will bring together responsibilities that currently fall to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the parts of the immigration service that deal with organised immigration, and the parts of Customs and Excise that deal with drug and people trafficking and related financial investigations. I pay clear tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the staff of those agencies, who have done such a good job over the years. The new agency will build on their success. It will bring together resources in a single organisation with a clear focus on drugs, people trafficking and financial crime. It will enable us to make more effective use of intelligence and to work more closely with specialist prosecutors. It will enable us to bring more criminals to justice and reduce the harm that they cause.
	The White Paper describes how the new agency will operate. It will be a non-departmental public body with operational independence, overseen by a small strategic board accountable to Ministers for the delivery of priorities set out by them. It will be chaired by a part-time non-executive, and will be led operationally by a full-time director general. We will advertise both posts shortly.
	We will legislate to bring the new agency into being as soon as parliamentary time allows, but in the meantime existing agencies will work together increasingly to share objectives and a common strategy. Thus we shall begin to see the practical benefits of change during the transitional period. The creation of the agency will give us an opportunity to consider how best to improve performance and co-ordination, especially in the securing of our borders.
	We will ensure, Mr. Deputy Speaker [Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must always get my gender right on these occasions.

Eric Forth: You can change it if you want.

David Blunkett: That is for later in the week, I think.
	We will ensure that Customs, special branch and the immigration service work together effectively. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I will direct the heads of all those services to develop more closely aligned objectives and priorities through their individual business plans. That will ensure co-ordinated, strategically driven operational activity. The arrangements will not interfere with any existing structures of accountability.
	Nowhere is that co-ordinated approach more important than in the battle against terrorism. At present, each of the 43 police forces maintains a separate special branch. Terrorists respect no such boundaries. I believe that we can significantly enhance effectiveness through greater co-ordination of activity, so I am creating a new national system to pool intelligence and co-ordinate operations. My announcement on 19 March of an extra £15 million, together with the strengthening of the counter-terrorism branch of the Metropolitan police, will enable us to achieve that goal more readily.
	Defeating organised crime is not just about structures and effective operations. The powers available to our agencies to deter, disrupt and protect are critical. We need to make the best possible use of our existing powers, whether they are probation licence conditions or asset recovery, immigration or tax powers. It was, after all, Elliot Ness from the Revenue who was crucial in achieving the conviction of Al Capone.
	The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is significant in our efforts to deprive criminals of their assets. The new cash seizure powers are netting £1 million a week, and we are on track to meet this year's overall target of recovering £45 million, but there is still much that we can do. We will ensure better use of intelligence and the better management of information, and we will make sure that prosecutors are involved at an early stage. Recent changes to the law have provided a more effective framework, but no group of defendants is more adept at manipulating legal safeguards. Such people make corruption and intimidation part of their system of defence.
	As organised crime becomes more complex and organised criminals more sophisticated, the need grows for new powers to gather evidence and for effective incentives for defendants to testify against their criminal associates. We will therefore build on the powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	With my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and other colleagues I have fundamentally reviewed the powers of our law enforcement agencies. As a result, we propose to create Serious Fraud Office powers to compel the production of documents and information and to put Queen's evidence on a statutory footing to encourage defendants to plead guilty and testify against co-defendants. We are also taking forward the idea of a national witness protection programme, and we will create new licence conditions to ensure that the finances of serious criminals are kept under close scrutiny after their release.
	Other reviews are relevant to this work, including that on the use of intercept material in court, on which we will provide a definitive proposal shortly; that on the law on conspiracy and secondary participation; and, of course, Sir Michael Bichard's review of data retention and information sharing among police forces. With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, I shall also ask the Sentencing Guidelines Council to review the existing sentencing regime to produce sentences that match more clearly the gravity of the underlying offences and the harm caused.
	Finally, we need to ensure a clear focus on our protection of areas of organised crime where most damage is done. That means transforming the quality of our intelligence-driven effort. We must increase the risks and reduce the benefits of operating in that field.
	The United Kingdom has never before produced a comprehensive strategy to tackle organised crime. With a new ministerial committee, under my chairmanship, and a better understanding of the harm caused, we have the building blocks to adopt a focused approach. The proposals that I am publishing today will define a new approach for the 21st century that will match the threat and the sophistication that we face. Defeating organised criminals is an objective that I know we all share. I commend the White Paper to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for giving us advance sight of his statement. I want to put it on the record that I support the principles contained in the Home Secretary's announcement. We have advocated for a long time the creation of an agency such as he has described, but my concern, as ever, is that a policy that enjoys all-party support in this House can turn out very badly if, as a result, it is not subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Indeed, that is particularly important where civil liberties are concerned.
	I want to raise several specific points, the first of which concerns plea bargaining, as the Home Secretary described the issue of Queen's evidence. We support his announcement, and the introduction of such a measure is overdue. Plea bargaining has worked well in countries such as Australia and America, but there have been problems historically in Northern Ireland. It creates a situation whereby it is to the advantage of a criminal to, as the jargon has it, fit somebody up. There can be no greater miscarriage of justice than an innocent man being jailed so that a criminal can go free. How will the Home Secretary ensure that that will not happen?
	We welcome the Home Secretary's announcement on intercepts. We are on the record as calling for the Government to lift the UK's self-imposed ban on the use of telephone intercepts in court, but, again, there are dangers. Obviously, we must ensure that we do not compromise the intelligence services. Moreover, intelligence information is, by its very nature, difficult to verify. It is imperative that we take steps to ensure that innocent people are not convicted on intelligence that turns out to be wrong. How does the Home Secretary intend to deal with that problem?
	I want to ask the Home Secretary about more general concerns relating to civil liberties. He did not refer to them today, but they have been discussed in the press in the past few weeks. Will the burden of proof in cases involving organised crime be lowered, as the Prime Minister suggested a few weeks ago? Furthermore, does the Home Secretary agree that any proposal that envisages convicting an individual on the basis of his own silence, and when there is no other evidence, would have serious implications for civil liberties?
	The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), has said that 5,000 people will work in the new agency. Does that involve any extra people, or are they being brought in from existing organisations? The head of the National Crime Squad has said that the agency will recruit officers from the police, and the Home Secretary is on record describing it as "an elite squad". Can he assure the House that the brightest and best in the police force will not be creamed off to fill places in the new agency? Does he agree that many extremely dedicated and talented people work in conventional policing, and that portraying them as somehow second class could damage police morale?
	The Home Secretary rightly pointed out that terrorism depends on organised crime. Has he received representations on whether SOCA as I presume we will call it should cover terrorism? If it is not to include terrorism, how will it work with the counter-terrorist agencies that cover an enormous amount of exactly the same ground? Can he outline in more detail how SOCA will co-ordinate its work with the police? In particular, what impact will it have on the autonomy of chief constables, which is so vital to the independence of our police forces?
	We support the general thrust of the proposal, but I remind the Home Secretary he doubtless already knows that the devil is in the detail, and particularly in the implementation.

David Blunkett: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's response and his appreciation for what we are doing. He is right to say that the devil is in the detail, and that the Opposition should scrutinise not only today's announcement but the policy's implementation. Yes, we intend to have clear safeguards on plea bargaining, and it is vital that we learn any lessons that we can from Northern Ireland about injustices that have been perpetrated. Putting Queen's evidence on a statutory footing will help in that regard: such activity has been at the very fringes in this country, accounting for only approximately 1 per cent. of cases. That compares with the United States, in which such activity accounts for more than a quarter of similar cases.
	It is also crucial that we get intercept evidence right. The right hon. Gentleman's colleague who deals with counter-terrorism made a useful contribution to our debate a month ago. As was said, we must ensure that we use such evidence for the right purpose in the right areas, which is why we are taking our time.
	We will not recruit additional staff. We will pull together over 1,000 Customs and Excise staff to deal with the issues that I have described as well as staff from the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and the immigration service. There has been a problem with secondments to the National Crime Squad, which is why it requested, and we granted it, the opportunity to recruit directly. The new agency will also do that and will try to secure the right people. It is possible for someone to be brilliant at community policing, but not at dealing with the sort of activities that are relevant to the investigations of the new body, and vice versa.
	It is vital to work closely with the police without threatening existing arrangements or the autonomy of chief constables. The president of the Association of Chief Police Officers has welcomed the new moves on the basis of the reassurances that we have given.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked about the threshold of evidence. When we originally announced the creation of the serious organised crime agency in February, the Prime Minister made it clear that we were talking about circumstances in which civil evidence was appropriate. That applies under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which confers the ability to seize assets and move on from that into other activity. As I spelled out a month ago in our useful debate on counter-terrorism, some aspects are relevant to terrorism, and they could be applied to serious crime where civil evidence for a civil order is appropriate.
	The licensing arrangements for post release I mentioned them in my statement, and the White Paper covers them are part of the process. Without threatening the evidence base for criminal law or the "beyond reasonable doubt" conditions, they will help us to be able to use our imagination in new ways to achieve new goals.
	Overall, given that £375 million is at its disposal, it is important that the agency adds value in the sense of enabling us to tackle problems that we have not been able to tackle in the past. When I meet chief constables, such as the one in Merseyside, I find that they are crying out for a co-ordinated approach, which links intelligence in the new agency to the intelligence in the security services and the work of the counter-terrorism branch of the Metropolitan police. There is already close working on operational matters, but there should be a real thrust to backing operations at local policing level to deal with not just national but international activities of organised criminals. That is how we can achieve what I described in the statement and make the environment of Britain deeply unwelcome for those who ruin our lives.

John Denham: My right hon. Friend knows how keen I was during my time in the Home Office to see better co-ordination between what have sometimes, frankly, been conflicting organisations with different lines of accountability. I welcome his statement and the White Paper.
	One problem that has bedevilled the fight against organised crime has been the organisation of intelligence information. Sometimes intelligence information links the community police officer with national information showing that someone is behind organised crime. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what progress has been made on implementation of the national intelligence model in police forces across the country to ensure that the information gathered by police officers at all different levels can be brought together effectively in support of the new agency?

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend draws attention to a critical aspect of the problem the ability to use the national intelligence model for volume crime at local level and to feed the patterns that it describes into the new regional intelligence cells, which special branch will now operate, and into the new organisation when it is up and running. We need the ability to share that intelligence not only more quickly but more effectively than before. I believe that it will really make a difference.

Mark Oaten: I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement, but, frankly, most of the detail has been running on the media since 8 o'clock this morning.
	Liberal Democrats understand that organised crime and terrorism are complex issues that require complex solutions. That is why we recognise that, in this un-ideal world, we have to accept some un-ideal solutions. We support most of what the Home Secretary has said in the White Paper.
	We support the idea of intercept communications, but why is the Home Secretary dragging his heels? Is he in favour or against, and when will the review be completed? Will he ensure that arrangements for accountability in the new agency, similar to those that operate for NCIS and the National Crime Squad, will be in place when it is established? Can he confirm that he will have no greater operational control of the new agency than he currently has?
	Why has the Home Secretary rejected the idea of a national border force? On page 30 of the White Paper, he proposes to set up intelligence targets as part of performance review. What does he mean by that? In the documents, he continues to advance the idea of identity cards. Can he confirm that despite serious Cabinet objections he employs 33 members of staff to work full time on that project?

David Blunkett: We are taking our time on intercept because—as is well known—there have been disagreements about its usage, how far it should go and which security and intelligence agencies or police forces might be involved in revealing their sources and methodology. That is why we have been modelling those aspects of organised crime and intelligence gathering that would be most appropriate for intercept use. I have made it clear that I have been won over to the belief that there is room for intercept evidence to be used judiciously. That will bring us in line with other countries, although those countries that use it do so in their investigatory, magisterial system, as opposed to the adversarial system used in English law.
	On the issue of intelligence, I am mindful that the whole thrust of the new policy is to lift the level of performance. The new agency will provide that investigatory and intelligence thrust. We must also ensure that it works alongside others who have an interest in border control and management. It is clear, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spelled out in revisions to the Inland Revenue and its amalgamation with the other aspects of excise, that it is important not to disrupt the collection of revenues. I would get shot if the Revenue lost money as a result of changes that I made. I am still discussing the spending review, even if some of my colleagues, such as those in health and education, have already settled, so I have a particular interest.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about identity cards. I made a statement to the House on the progress we were making and on the imminent publication of a draft Bill. In order to produce a draft Bill and to undertake the gateway process for the Office of Government Commerce, staff are needed. One day, in the distant future, the hon. Gentleman may have the opportunity to learn about that, and I shall wish him well on my deathbed.

Hugh Bayley: What powers and resources will the officers working for the new agency have to collect evidence and investigate crime committed abroad? In relation to serious international financial crimes, especially those of bribery and corruption, which were legislated against in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, how will the new agency co-operate with the Serious Fraud Office, and which agency will be in the lead in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes?

David Blunkett: In cases of serious fraud, it will be the Serious Fraud Office. I have already said that we will publish a separate paper on the SFO, because that fits well with dealing more broadly with issues of corruption. We want to get that right. Having had a consultation on corruption, the Attorney-General and I want to integrate the two.
	I have already indicated that the powers of the SFO will be made available to the new agency. They will have to work hand in glove, but because the SFO operates differently and because we shall hold consultations in the months ahead about the section in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that caused so much controversy, I want to ensure that we get things right.

Alan Beith: Given the strength of the Newton committee's recommendation about the use of intercept, is the Home Secretary satisfied that there is a way of creating a distinct and separately authorised system for the use of intercept evidence that does not compromise the work of the intelligence agencies?
	On a separate point, can he clarify whether the serious organised crime agency will have the same responsibilities in Scotland as in England and Wales, or has he yet to reach an understanding with the Scottish Executive on that matter?

David Blunkett: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the first point; it is possible to achieve that.
	As the right hon. Gentleman has a border constituency, he will be familiar with the legal system in Scotland, which is different from that in England and Wales. Obviously, the existing powers for Customs and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will need to continue to operate UK-wide, but the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Administration will, of necessity, involve us in detailed discussions on the new agency and its remit. We received a very warm welcome from the First Minister and the Secretary of State in relation to getting that right, and I look forward to the discussions continuing.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I urge my right hon. Friend not to dismiss the idea of a highly mobile, uniformed force for border policing to complement the agency that he has announced today? That function is still extremely important, as is illustrated by the Thames estuary where there is a multiplicity of agencies—Kent, Essex, the Met, the City police, the Port of London Authority, Customs and Excise and immigration control—but no coherent policy for scrutiny of small, fast, new-technology boats and craft, which can move swiftly to promote organised crime, people smuggling or terrorism in that very vulnerable area. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that point back to his officials.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend has correctly been assiduous on this subject, but I might ask him to consider that his glass is three quarters full.

Andrew MacKinlay: Yes, yes.

David Blunkett: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's affirmation.
	Further progress can be made. Neither the changes in better co-ordination that we have announced nor the new agency will entirely resolve the issue that my hon. Friend raised. We still have room for manoeuvre, not least on the issue that he identified new ways of developing smuggling. In fact, they are not so new; they replicate what went on in the 18th century, and although my beard is grey I am prepared to employ a black beard to tackle the problems in the future.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House and to those who may be viewing that there will still be safeguards to ensure that wiretaps are carried out responsibly? Perhaps it might happen only with the authority of local magistrates. What is his view of the vexed situation in America, whereby illegal wiretaps are accepted in court if they genuinely demonstrate the guilt of the person being tried? That is a difficult question. We do not want to encourage illegal wiretaps, but on the other hand we want a guilty person to be found guilty. Does the Home Secretary have a view on that?

David Blunkett: I certainly have a view on the latter point. I do not want to use one of last week's clichés and say, "I am not going down that road", but I do not think that there is room in our country for the use of illegal methods. We should be stamping them out. None of us wants to be tapped illegally and I do not intend to advocate it.
	On the hon. Gentleman's first point, yes, we need rigid safeguards. When we are dealing with that level of criminality, the Home Secretary must personally approve the agency's right to go ahead with an intercept in the first place, and although that has grown substantially, such approval is still the case and will remain so for as long as I am Home Secretary.

Tom Watson: My right hon. Friend should be commended for introducing proposals that are proportionate to the new challenges facing British security, and especially for the extra resources to be made available for counter-terrorism work. Will he confirm that the additional resources for the Met police will not lead to a reduction in the West Midlands police force's fight against terrorism? What representations has he received from the intelligence services on the use of intercepts? Does he envisage that they will have the ultimate veto on the use of intercept evidence in court?

David Blunkett: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, no, what I have announced will not interfere with developments in the regions of England and Wales, because I had already allocated £3 million. Part of the £15 million will go to establish the new regional intelligence cells and to the work of co-ordinating special branch. On the second part of his question, I do not intend to spell out this afternoon which agency is in favour of what. I read about such things in the newspapers, but I take such reports with as large a pinch of salt as I take press reports about intelligence and security issues in general. There will not be a veto, because we will lay down in which areas this will be appropriate, subject to the final decisions that stand to be taken by the Prime Minister.

Graham Brady: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the number of police officers attached to NCIS is already being reduced from 260 to 100? Does he intend those experienced, trained and skilled investigators to be redeployed to the new agency, to ensure that their skills are not lost?

David Blunkett: It is important that we do not lose the experience that people have gained. The officers in question were seconded and had come to the end of their secondment. It is important that, during the interregnum between now and the full operation of the agency, we give people an opportunity either to continue or to reapply, so that we do not lose their expertise and dislocate that experience.

David Cairns: May I press my right hon. Friend further on narco-terrorism? He will be aware that this year's increased poppy harvest in Afghanistan will inevitably lead to more and cheaper heroin on Britain's streets, which will bring domestic criminal and health problems. In addition, profits from the trade are being used to fund terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Will he spell out how the various agencies will work together to combat what I believe will be acknowledged in the coming Session to be an increasing problem of narco-terrorism?

David Blunkett: It certainly is a problem. I met President Karzai at the end of last year, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has pressed the case strongly. We discussed how we could assist both within and across the borders of Afghanistan in tackling the organised criminal line that leads inexorably to much of the heroin arriving on our streets. Customs and Excise has done a good job of disruption and seizure, but the agency's role will be not only to work inside this country, but to link up with colleagues in other countries to tackle internationally the organised trade in narcotics.

Lady Hermon: Even though my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party are not with me in body, I assure the Home Secretary that they are with me in spirit when I say that we support his statement today and the White Paper. Incidentally, we also support the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who is sitting beside him.
	I particularly welcome the Home Secretary's statement that "We will make the UK one of the most difficult environments in the world for organised crime". As he knows, organised crime in Northern Ireland is particularly nasty very sophisticated, but very brutal. Will he give me an assurance today that, despite the sensitivities about supergrass evidence, non-jury trials and phone-tapping in Northern Ireland, the legislation introduced on the back of the White Paper will extend to Northern Ireland from the start, instead of colleagues of mine having to plead with him to extend it to Northern Ireland?

David Blunkett: I always take notice of the hon. Lady. If I might be really cheeky, I think that I have said to her before that I prefer her body, wherever the spirit might be that she described this afternoon. [Interruption.] Of course it was a compliment. I know that the hon. Lady is still able to take a compliment, which is nice.
	I am concerned that we do not resile from being able to use powers in Northern Ireland and that we are able to extend what has been done despite the difficulties that have been experienced, given that some of the most vivid examples of organised crime, nationally and internationally, have been provided by the way in which people have behaved towards one another in Northern Ireland.

Nigel Beard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of concern in the financial services industry that reports generated by the industry on suspected money laundering are not being fully pursued by the National Criminal Intelligence Service due to a lack of resources? Will he give an assurance that the arrangements that he has announced will strengthen the ability to investigate money laundering?

David Blunkett: There is already a task force, precisely for the reason that my hon. Friend describes. There have been real difficulties. That needs to be fed into the operation of the agency, not least because getting the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad working in the same organisation will assist with the gathering, investigation and prosecution of that evidence.

Mark Field: May I also endorse the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) in supporting the statement? Clearly we have some concerns about all aspects of civil liberties, but they will be discussed and debated at a later stage.
	My concern relates to the City of London police, within my constituency. The Home Secretary will appreciate the important role that they play in relation to serious fraud, particularly the international element, to which the right hon. Gentleman has rightly referred. I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) who asks where the resources will come from? A structure is in place but, as the Home Secretary will be aware, a number of the initiatives that the City of London police have taken, particularly with the police in Miami, on drug abuses have foundered in recent months because of a lack of funding.
	I hope that the Home Secretary will give serious consideration to ensuring that such initiatives are properly resourced. It is all very well to have a structure in place but without proper resourcing, as we know from all areas of civil contingency protection, many of the advantages of new legislation and new policy will come to nought.

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been detailed discussions with the City of London police on their relationship with the Serious Fraud Office and on the important role that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General believes can be played by their work. That has already involved resources.
	I will make no commitment today because the City of London Corporation has, as ever, been full of its usual guile in making sure that our contribution is substantial regardless of the part of the pot to which it thinks that it can contribute. I will write to the hon. Gentleman separately on the way in which that progress is being made.

Tony Cunningham: I have spoken to police officers who have to deal with organised crime, especially drugs and people smuggling. They tell me that the vast majority of those who control this illegal trade do not live in this country. They live in Spain, Holland or elsewhere. How will my right hon. Friend deal with such an issue?

David Blunkett: During the statement made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister we were discussing the importance of being able to co-operate across boundaries, to be able to pursue criminals throughout the rest of Europe, to be able to use the new arrest warrant that the House has already approved and to be able to ensure that through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 we are able to seize the product of organised criminality. That will be crucial to getting things right. I am sure that the new Spanish Government will want to co-operate with us. They would not want on their doorstep or beaches the sort of criminals that we do not want on our doorstep or beaches.

Ian Davidson: I welcome the Government's statement, although many of us are worried that the Home Secretary may be a bit soft on some elements. What steps is he taking to deal with the key support mechanisms for organised crime, such as the lawyers, bankers and accountants who appear to be beyond the reach of the law but who provide such important assistance to organised crime? What steps is he taking, together with the Treasury, to attack financial and banking jurisdictions of dubious quality? Does he intend to try to pursue jurisdictions that hide behind banking secrecy to allow not only money laundering, but the tax avoidance and tax evasion so often used by organised crime?

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend has done my standing with The Guardian and The Independent a power of good by describing me as too soft. I am grateful to him for it. He asks a substantive question: how can we develop from the powers of the Serious Fraud Office the ability of the new agency not only to demand information, but to access documents and take the necessary steps, from which the National Crime Squad has so far been precluded, to get at the detail that my hon. Friend describes and to penetrate the wall erected to prevent people from getting at the truth? It is much more difficult to do so in the international context implied by his question. I believe that the proposed powers will be proportionate, and that they will be able to get behind the scenes as he described, which is essential to get to the truth.

Vera Baird: I hope that I do not damage my right hon. Friend's reputation by welcoming the statement as a balanced package. I can see how the evidential changes in particular might make a real difference in the courtroom pursuit of organised crime. I am pleased that the new serious and organised crime agency will cover cross-border trafficking, people trafficking and immigration crime generally. On that theme, can my right hon. Friend expand on the comments that I think I heard him make this morning about backlog clearance in immigration cases?

David Blunkett: The first thing that I should make clear is that those cases are not about asylum or about people flooding into our country. They deal substantially, as they have since the 1980s, with in-country renewal and claims that are dealt with on evidence already available. I shall lay in the Library a list of changes and operations undertaken since the late 1980s, through the 1990s and into the 21st century, all of which reflect the desire of successive Governments to use common-sense approaches to deal with a common-sense problem in such a way that those engaged in crime of any sort or terrorism present no threat to us and would be picked out in the normal way.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: It is a pleasure indeed, a great joy to welcome substantively all the general points made in the statement. May I, however, ask the Home Secretary for assurances on two points? First, in relation to plea bargaining, transparent plea bargaining has become long overdue in dealing with serious crime. May I ask for his assurance that he will consult those who practise who prosecute and defend serious crime and serious criminals so that we can get this difficult area of the law right before it comes back to Parliament? Secondly, may I ask the Home Secretary to assure the House that he will exercise very great caution in considering anything that interferes with or restricts legal professional privilege, lest we have the effect of discouraging and deterring the very best and most reputable of firms that deal with this area as a result of bringing in those that are not reputable, and thereby defeating the essential elements of the statement?

David Blunkett: Having damaged my reputation for ever, I am about to damage it even further by saying that I do not intend to threaten lawyers in the way that my hon. and learned Friend describes. [Interruption.] I hear it said that I should read my Shakespeare; I shall go back and do that, having read my Dickens when I was dealing with earlier legislation. I can assure him that we do not threaten what he describes. The consultation period on the White Paper, prior to introducing the legislation I hope that we will do that at the end of the year will provide an opportunity to consult those who are most deeply involved.

Points of Order

David Davis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a very serious matter: how can Members of Parliament protect a civil servant who has been penalised as a result of sending to a Member an e-mail alerting them to potential inaccuracies in a ministerial statement? Last week, the British consul in Bucharest, a career civil servant, was suspended for sending me just such an e-mail from his home address. Is it not the case that disciplining civil servants for talking to Members of the House of Commons is a breach of privilege?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be raising a complaint of privilege rather than a point of order. Privilege issues should be raised in writing with Mr. Speaker, so that he can give them proper consideration. If the right hon. Gentleman sends Mr. Speaker a letter setting out the full circumstances about which he is complaining, Mr. Speaker will give the matter his attention and respond as appropriate.

John Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that Mr. Speaker has frequently ruled from the Chair that hon. Members should give warning of visits to one another's constituencies, and I think that most hon. Members on both sides of the House follow that convention. However, within the past couple of weeks, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, has visited St. George's hospital in my constituency without giving any warning, and I still have not received any kind of written explanation. It also seems that the Tories locally are using St. George's as a political football by claiming that there is a definitive plan to close the hospital, which is not the case. There is a consultation on the hospital, and I am contributing to it, but it sounds to me as though they are using scare tactics. Will you comment on that convention, and confirm that it is the convention that right hon. and hon. Members should warn Members representing neighbouring constituencies or any other Members about visits to their constituencies?

Andrew Lansley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I have caused any upset to the hon. Gentleman, I apologise. For the record, so far as I was concerned, I was visiting Oldchurch hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and undertaking a private party engagement in Hornchurch, during the course of which I did indeed comment on the subject of St. George's hospital, but undertook no official engagement there. [Interruption.] I did indeed talk about St. George's hospital while I was in Hornchurch. As the hon. Gentleman knows well, I combined that with a private engagement in Hornchurch, visiting my parents. Of course, I shall take care to tell him whenever I visit my parents in future.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be very aware that the last crash at Heathrow landed in my constituency

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish first to respond to the previous points of order.
	I can only reiterate what Mr. Speaker has said: clearly, there are common courtesies of this House whereby right hon. and hon. Members should inform the Member whose constituency they are visiting of that visit. Mr. Speaker has also suggested that these matters are perhaps best dealt with between the Members concerned. I hope that all Members will observe the common courtesies of this House.

David Wilshire: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I thought that you had decided that silence was the best way of dealing with the last matter.
	As I was saying, you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the last crash at Heathrow landed in my constituency, and that the mortars that were fired into Heathrow were fired from my constituency. I am sure that you can therefore imagine how deeply alarmed many of my constituents were at the weekend at the story about Heathrow being identified as a primary al-Qaeda target. In the circumstances, I wonder whether Mr. Speaker has received any request from a Minister to make a statement that would reassure my constituents that everything is being done to ensure that they are as safe as possible?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Much as I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman's constituents, I do not think that Mr. Speaker has received any such request, which is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. Orders of the Day

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

Lords message considered [25 March]
	Clause 1

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1F to Commons amendment 1C.
	I can barely believe that, despite the House of Commons reaching a strong view on so many occasions and so frequently expressing its opinion, we are still being told by the Conservative and Liberal majority in the House of Lords that it knows better than the House of Commons when it comes to elections policy. In its latest amendment, the other place suggests that we should not proceed with all-postal voting in four regions, which the Government announced on 21 January. On this occasion, the other place wants to leave out the north-west of England for a variety of inexplicable reasons, and I urge the House to reject that suggestion and to stand firm with our decided view that we want four regions in those pilots.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister confirm that a decision to conduct three rather than four pilots would be welcomed by the Electoral Commission, which has made it plain over the past few days that perhaps Yorkshire and Humber should be conceded, but not the north-west?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman has moved his position from previous occasions. He should know that, in our democracy, it is this House, acting on the advice of Ministers, that makes final decisions when it comes to elections policy. We take advice from the Electoral Commission and hear what it has to say, but at the end of the day that day ended some time ago Parliament has the right to take a firm decision.

Dave Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the potential for fraud is the major reason why Liberal peers oppose the north-west being involved in the postal ballot? Can he explain why Liberal Democrat peers are happy to have a postal vote in a referendum, but are not happy to have one for local and European elections?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend looks for logic in the Opposition parties' thinking, but their rationale is not apparent. Hon. Members will be astonished by the history of how we are here today. The Government decided to go with four regions on 21 January, and the House of Commons ratified that decision on 8 March. The House of Commons reconfirmed that decision on 16 March, and reiterated it only last week on 24 March, but here we are again.

John Redwood: All the time that we still have a second chamber I believe that it is still Government policy to allow us a second chamber its views should be taken seriously and there should be give and take. The second chamber has given up its insistence on two pilots; why can the Minister not give up his insistence on four pilots and reach a sensible compromise?

Christopher Leslie: It is true that the other place has powers to revise and amend legislation, and, as we heard last week, noble Lords are experienced and often speak with authority. In this case, however, the other place's powers are being abused by the Opposition parties in their pursuit of overturning the will of the Government and the House of Commons. There comes a point when revision and amendment become obstructive and vexatious. This is not real scrutiny, but a brazen attempt by the Conservatives and the Liberals actively to prevent people in the north-west from having convenient voting mechanisms in the European and local elections.

Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise that his case is fatally undermined by the fact that, as recently as 16 December, he said in this House not once, twice or three times, but about six times that the Government intended to have three pilots? The other place has reluctantly conceded three pilots. The Government, under huge pressure from the Deputy Prime Minister, have changed their mind and are seeking to insist on four. His own colleagues have fatally undermined the Minister.

Christopher Leslie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been discussing this since 21 January, when the Government made it absolutely clear that we wanted four regions: the east midlands, the north-east, the north-west, and Yorkshire and Humber. It is important that we proceed with all-postal voting in four regions, and I shall tell him why. We already know about the difficulties with turnout, not least in local and European elections, and it is important to ensure that we can respond with modern electoral mechanisms. We also know that all-postal voting is popular and convenient among the public, which is proved by the fact that it usually results in a rise in turnout of at least 10 per cent. We know that the resources are there for pilots in four regions, and if we can afford to go ahead, there is no reason why we should not do so.
	Most importantly, we know that regional returning officers in all four regions are keen that all-postal voting should proceed; indeed, they perceive several risks in not proceeding. In correspondence with me and my Department, they have expressed worry that the delays and uncertainty created by the other place have cast a blight on their planning and preparations, because they find it difficult to proceed while there is no legislative clarity.

Clive Betts: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that over the past few weeks the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been taking evidence on all-postal vote elections. When returning officers from Yorkshire gave evidence, they made it clear that any attempt to reverse the all-postal ballot proposals would make it virtually impossible for them to reorganise their arrangements. If that is true for Yorkshire, it must be true for the north-west as well.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend makes a salient point. I have heard that many of the suppliers and contractors who normally engage with returning officers are worried that, if this uncertainty continues, via the obstruction by Opposition parties, they may not be able to proceed.
	New ward boundaries have been introduced in many metropolitan areas following boundary reviews, and returning officers may well find it difficult to locate local polling stations within them. That could prove particularly difficult if the north-west is forced by the amendment to go back to conventional systems. Those returning officers would have to find the staff to ensure that the polling stations could run efficiently. There are all sorts of reasons why effectively forcing the north-west to go back on what was planned and return to the conventional system would create difficulties. It would be irresponsible for Opposition parties to force that situation.

Nick Hawkins: Should not returning officers have to wait until the legislation is on the statute book? If they are behaving as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) suggests, they are mistaken. They should wait until the legislation is in its final form, not jump the gun because they are under pressure from party political views expressed by Government Members.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have been trying to resolve the matter for far longer than he suggests. If we had been able to resolve it far sooner, returning officers would not be asking questions about uncertainty. We have always been keen to ensure swift enactment of the measure but the Opposition parties' abuse of the powers of the other place has caused uncertainty. I hope that they will stop using the other place improperly to obstruct the Bill, allow its passage to continue and permit resolution so that four regions can be selected.

David Borrow: Does my hon. Friend believe it reasonable for returning officers in the north-west to assume that, once the House of Commons has said that the region should be one of the postal vote pilots, they can plan on that basis, rather than assuming that the House of Lords will kibosh the whole thing?

Christopher Leslie: As my hon. Friend says, an almost unprecedented constitutional situation is developing. There has been a significant amount of ping-pong between the two Houses on previous legislation, but the House of Lords rarely stands in the way of the will of the House of Commons, especially on elections policy. The root cause is clear: Conservative and Liberal peers have been instructed by their respective Front Benchers to use the revising powers of the other place to try to scupper legislation whenever the bandwagon appears and the opportunity arises. That could be their motivation for standing in the way of the north-west, especially, having more convenient voting mechanisms.

Gordon Prentice: May I take my hon. Friend back to the letter that Sam Younger sent him on 4 March? The nub of the matter appears to be that the Electoral Commission said:
	"the rollout of all postal elections needs to be underpinned by a more robust statutory framework."
	What can my hon. Friend say to reassure me and others that that robust framework exists so that people who ask about fraud are satisfied that it will not happen under the new system?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is right that we support piloting all-postal arrangements and that, as the Electoral Commission suggested, before we have a wider roll-out for local government elections nationwide, there may need to be changes to individual registration and so on. However, in the interim, it is important to begin to scale up the piloting of all-postal arrangements. There has been considerable piloting of all-postal arrangements in previous local elections. If we were not allowed to proceed with four regions, fewer people would vote on an all-postal basis than in 2003. That would not be scaling up, but scaling back and it would be perceived as a backward step.

John Bercow: I fear that, in the course of a short speech, the Minister has already contradicted himself. He said that the other place was guilty of a procedural impropriety but went on to refer to its use of revising powers. He knows perfectly well that the other place has those powers and it has simply had the temerity, in his view, to use them. Why does not he admit that the real sin of the other place is to disagree with him?

Christopher Leslie: The shadow Secretary of State for International Development is wrong on that point. As I said earlier, it is not simply a matter of a disagreement between the two Houses. The House of Commons made its view known on 8 March, reiterated it on 16 March, did so again on 24 March and here we are again. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the motion to disagree and that we will again reiterate the strong view of the elected House of Commons. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to say that there is no Conservative Whip and no Liberal Democrat Whip in the other place to thwart the will of the House of Commons in our democratic decision about elections policy, I shall be happy to give way to him. However, I suspect that there is a Whip because the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are pursuing a partisan motivation, on which I shall expand shortly. Will he say, on behalf of the shadow Secretaries of States, that there is no Whip?

John Bercow: The Minister elevates me beyond all reasonable heights of my ambition. He ought to know that whipping is not a matter for me; I am just a humble shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

Christopher Leslie: I agree that the hon. Gentleman is indeed a humble shadow Secretary of State.
	What are the true reasons behind the Conservative and Liberal opposition, particularly to the north-west? As I have said, their motivation could well be simply scuppering legislation opportunistically. They may well not want a higher turnout in the local and European elections in the north-west of England. There is certainly no evidence that all-postal elections are any more prone to fraud than conventional elections, not least because there have been no convictions for fraud in all-postal elections in the north-west. I know that some noble Lords have referred to certain anecdotes, but they related particularly to the conventional system of election, which suggests that other problems, not associated with all-postal voting, might well be at the root of the issue.

Robert Smith: The Minister does a disservice to the other place, given the Electoral Commission's advice to the Government. Some of us have just come from Committee Room 11, where we have been considering the draft European Parliament orders. In that context, the Government have accepted in full the Electoral Commission's advice on constituency sizes. In one sphere, the Government accept that the commission's judgment is right and proper, but they reject it when it relates to the best way to conduct pilots.

Christopher Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman's policy is always to adhere to the advice of the Electoral Commission, why did his colleague agree in an earlier debate to reinstitute the declaration of identity provision the witness signature provision against the advice of the commission? That was the subject of a Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place. It suits the Liberal Democrats to adhere to the commission's advice when they want to, but not when they do not. We have to consider the motivation of the Opposition parties for using the powers of the other place to thwart the decisions of the House of Commons.

Chris Bryant: Is not the real impropriety the fact that the House of Lords is engaged in these actions on a time-limited piece of legislation? This is not a Bill that could come in next year or the year after; it is specifically time limited. That means that the Lords are abusing the convention of the House that they will deal with their business in a timely fashion. This could only have been considered timely if it had already been dealt with by now, because returning officers have to make decisions.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend could well be right. There are significant risks and dangers involved in the games being played by the Opposition parties. The returning officers in the north-west could face difficulties if those parties force them to go back on what they are already planning, and to return to conventional elections. We know for a fact that returning officers now want to proceed with all-postal voting. I hope that the Opposition parties will not leave the north-west in the lurch by forcing it to go back on its plans. There are significant dangers in going down that route. We know that there are significant benefits associated with all-postal voting, and that there are dangers associated with preventing such voting, particularly in the north-west. It is right for us to proceed with all-postal voting in those four regions, and I urge the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.

Nick Hawkins: Every time the Minister gets to his feet and speaks in a polite and moderate tone of voice, as he always does, I become more and more convinced that he believes in the elected dictatorship of a one-party state. He speaks about the House of Commons as though there were cross-party agreement here on this issue, but we and the Liberal Democrats in both Houses have always opposed the Government's proposals. Moreover, the Government have changed their mind. Until 16 December last year, they made it clear that they intended to have only three all-postal pilots. They could have three all-postal pilots reluctantly conceded recently by the other place if they wanted them now, but we see in this the heavy hand of the Deputy Prime Minister, who was bellowing at us from the Treasury Bench when we debated these measures the time before last and who is obsessed with having all-postal pilots in all the Labour heartlands for party political advantage to fit in with what he wants for the referendums later in the year.
	The game was given away just before what I might describe as round 7 of this heavyweight contest by a written answer in last Thursday's Hansard from the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), at the same time as the other place was about to debate the matter for the umpteenth time. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked:
	"To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met members or officials of the Electoral Commission; what the purpose of that meeting was; and what the outcome was."
	The junior Minister, who was on the Treasury Bench a little earlier, gave this answer, which I can describe only as containing terminological inexactitude:
	"My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister met with members of the Electoral Commission on 3 March to discuss issues relating to the piloting of all-postal voting at the European Parliamentary and combined local elections in June, including how many regions should be involved."
	This is where it becomes rather more serious, because it continues:
	"Both parties agreed that the regions that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced should use all-postal voting this year are each capable of running a successful pilot." [Official Report, 24 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 909W.]
	Since that meeting on 3 March, to which that answer refers, we have had not one but two letters to the Government. Despite my challenges last time we debated these measures and the time before, we have not seen the letters from Ministers to the Electoral Commission. I again challenge the Minister to put those letters, as well as minutes of all meetings that he, other Ministers or the Deputy Prime Minister have had with the Electoral Commission, in the Library of the House. Three times at the Dispatch Box I have asked him to do so, but each time his response has been silence.
	We know from both the Electoral Commission's replies that that answer from the hon. Member for Corby does not reflect what the Electoral Commission says. As we debated last week, and as has been set out in this place and the other place, the Electoral Commission, as recently as 23 March, said:
	"The considerations as set out in our December Report regarding the North West have not changed".
	The Electoral Commission sets out in detail in its report why it regards the north-west as unsuitable, and it has not changed its mind. In addition, the Electoral Commission goes on in that letter to say:
	"For the reasons set out in my letter of 4 March"
	that is, the letter sent after that meeting
	"we are not persuaded of the merits of piloting in 4 regions."
	The Electoral Commission is still saying three regions and not the north-west. It has put compelling reasons why, and noble lords and baronesses in another place have set out convincing reasons why the north-west should not be chosen.
	The Government are obsessed with adding the north-west, which they originally intended not to do, and this Minister said not once or twice but about six times that the Government wanted three pilot regions. They want to add the north-west for their party political advantage and because the Deputy Prime Minister is obsessed by it.

Andy Burnham: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the Electoral Commission's position. It said in its report that the north-west was potentially suitable. May I challenge him on this? Two weeks ago at the Dispatch Box, he made allegations of wholesale fraud that is the phrase that he used in the north-west. He referred specifically to the remarks of Lord Greaves and asked us to look them up, which I did. Is he aware that a report by Lancashire constabulary on those allegations found no evidence whatever of wrongdoing and that the file is closed? Does not his case against the north-west collapse due to that revelation?

Nick Hawkins: No, it does not. I heard Lord Greaves giving an interview on national radio after our debates last week, as I was driving back to my constituency. He has not changed his mind at all, and he was debating the issues with the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). The Electoral Commission is saying that it has not changed its reasons, which were given on 23 March. It has not changed its view on the north-west; the views of the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) are undermined by the Electoral Commission, which his Government set up.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend may already be aware as a result of the revelation from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) that a statutory instrument has recently been discussed Upstairs that would reduce the number of MEPs in this country. The Government accepted in its entirety the Electoral Commission's recommendation on that. When we asked the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who is currently on the Treasury Bench, why the Government accepted its recommendation in that respect but not in this one, he said that the two were different. Would my hon. Friend like to speculate on what the difference is?

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right, and I suspect that the difference is accounted for by the obsessions of the Deputy Prime Minister and the party political advantage of the Government party.

Chris Bryant: The whole tenor of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to make sure that there is a postal ballot in Labour heartlands, because that will give party advantage to the Labour party. The strongest Labour heartland is Wales, which has not a single Tory representative in this House. If the hon. Gentleman's argument were true, surely Wales would be included in the pilot.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has not played much of a part in our many earlier deliberations on the Bill. Had he done so, he would have known that we debated extensively Wales and Scotland, and many of his hon. Friends from Scotland were and, I imagine, still are outraged that Scotland has not been included. They were not included because the Electoral Commission specifically recommended against them, in even stronger terms than it did against the north-west.
	Labour Members have this problem: they set up the Electoral Commission, and they are now picking and choosing only those recommendations that suit them. The biggest weakness in the Government's case is that the Government said originally not once, not twice, but many times, through this Minister that they intended only three electoral pilots. They were put out because the Electoral Commission originally recommended only two. They said that they would go ahead with a third. Only recently have they started to become obsessed with a fourth.
	The Minister has also been trying to rewrite the history of the battles between the two Chambers of this bicameral legislature. He sought to suggest that there is something unusual about ping-pong, as it is called, between the two Houses. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I are well aware, that has happened towards the end of a legislative period pretty well every year since this Government came to power. Only last year, we were debating the Criminal Justice Bill, which was going backwards and forwards between the two Houses until the Government were forced to give way at the last minute, with ill grace, on the last day of the Session. I suspect that that will happen in this case. Just as we come to the Easter recess, the Government will be forced to go back to what the Electoral Commission recommends, and accept that the other place and the Electoral Commission are right. That is why we will stick to our guns, and the other place should stick to its guns.

Kevin Barron: It is a few weeks since I spoke in any debate in relation to this Bill, although I listened to the last such debate. The last time that I spoke was on 8 March. The Opposition's arguments against including the north-west are those that they used against Yorkshire and Humber. We also found out, of course, that Yorkshire and Humber was included in the Opposition amendment in the other place last week. There is a lot of hypocritical talk in this Chamber about what the intentions of the other place are.
	I told the House on 8 March why I support the Bill and why all-postal ballots are good for democracy. They increase participation and I doubt whether they affect the result. They did not affect the result in my constituency last year, but 53 per cent. of people turning out is a lot better than 23 per cent. That example came from my constituency.
	Looking at the debate in the other place last week, there can be no doubt that the whole issue relates to party politics. My hon. Friend the Minister passed some comment about the official Opposition. Reading the debate, I do not put a lot of the problem down to the major Opposition party, because it does not seem to know what is taking place most of the time. All that it knows is when to support the amendments tabled by a minor Opposition party, the Liberal Democrats. That is when they all pile into the Division Lobbies, and that is why we have ended up in this position on I think three occasions.
	No one reading reports of debates on the Bill, especially debates in the other place, could doubt that this is about Liberal Democrat party politics relating not to Yorkshire and Humberside, the east midlands or the north-east, but to the north-west. I said that on 8 March, and it has been reaffirmed at least twice since then, when Members of the other place have sought to table amendments opposing the Bill.

Russell Brown: I have looked at some of the figures and tried to draw conclusions from them. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) spoke of parliamentary ping-pong, and that is what we have seen since the Government came to power in 1997 on, to the best of my knowledge, 13 occasions, involving 13 Bills that this Labour Government have tried to pass. Between 1979 and 1997, the other place tried to frustrate this House on three occasions. That tells its own story. Nor should my hon. Friend forget the role of the Cross Benchers, who have supported the Tories in 80 per cent. of cases.

Kevin Barron: Perhaps my hon. Friend feels that Cross Benchers in the other place are not so independent of party politics in that respect. I shall keep my view of the other place out of the debate.
	This is all about Liberal Democrats and the north-west. I shall now address myself to the only two Liberal Democrats in the Chamber, the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). I have said this repeatedly. I said it on 8 March, and it has been said before. Last week Lord Rennard said that the issue was,
	"I think, a very principled one that no one party should choose different voting mechanisms for different places according to its own interest, based in this case on fears that the electorate will not turn out to support it." [Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 851.]
	Let me tell both Liberal Democrats that I would think that disgraceful if it came from anyone involved in elective politics, but I can accept such views from people next door who have never been involved in elective politics, or have been involved only in elective politics that have failed. I do not think that they understand the issue: I do not think they understand what our democracy is about. I am not a mechanistic democrat, but I think that those who deny knowingly that they would prefer a 20 per cent. turnout to one of 40 or 50 per cent. do a disservice to local government and the European electorate, and to democracy. I believe that they are doing it on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the north-west, and that they should be ashamed of themselves.

John Redwood: It is true that postal ballots increase turnout, so why have the Government not proposed universal postal ballots for this election?

Kevin Barron: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are talking about a pilot. We have had this debate time and again. On 8 March he intervened on me to say that he was not so sure about postal ballots. He said:
	"such a widespread experiment cannot proceed until the real issues of impersonation, pressure and fraud are dealt with." [Official Report, 8 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1308.]
	As I said then, most of the arguments against an all-postal ballot for any one, three or four regions could be used to oppose postal ballots in general.
	I have seen this in action in a small way. I think that participation is good and healthy, and I do not think that one political party will be affected more than another. In our last debate, I said that if the tide was against a political party, it would drown more quickly. That is especially true if the tide is stronger than usual.
	All the ping-pong is wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said that the other place had challenged this House three times between 1979 and 1997. When I was elected in 1983, it was felt that a big majority was unhealthy and bad for democracy. I cannot remember the other place challenging that Government. It was all about party politics then, and we heard about not frustrating the will of the people. It seems to me that in considering this Bill, we could frustrate the will of the people.
	I do not know whether Ministers agree with my analysis, but my answer to the questions "Why today?" and "Why the north-west?" would be this. It is simple and logical to involve the north-west in June, because we all know that in October the north-west will vote in an all-postal ballot on whether to have a regional assembly. One thing that can be said of the logic is that it is consistent with what the Electoral Commission has said many times. Playing the hokey-cokey by having all-postal votes and then returning to the old system will denigrate electoral politics in this country, and be bad for turnouts. That is what Opposition Members and those in the other place propose, and they are wrong.

David Heath: Welcome to Groundhog Day, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are going through all the same arguments in the same way, with no more clarity or logic than before.
	The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) may find this odd, but I agreed with a great deal of what he said. He suggested that encouraging more people to vote was a good thing; I agree. He said that all-postal ballots appeared, on the basis of the evidence so far, to increase the number of votes; I agree. He said that it was right to organise pilot schemes so that we could assess how we might expand the process; I agree. He said that he did not believe that the democratic outcome of the elections would be affected; I agree, on the basis of the evidence that we have seen so far. He said that it was wrong for areas that had already had all-postal ballots to be prevented from having them this year. That is exactly the position in which my constituents will find themselves as a result of the Bill, which he supports. It will make it illegal for them to have an all-postal ballot in the European elections and the local authority elections in June. They had one last time because my Liberal Democrat-controlled authority allowed the Government's interests to be met.
	There is much on which the right hon. Gentleman and I agree; where we disagree is on the fundamental issue of who makes the recommendations on which we reach our decisions. We have said all along that we should use the Electoral Commission as an independent arbiter because that is safest in a democratic society.

Dave Watts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: Not yet; the hon. Gentleman can intervene when he has listened to my argument.
	The safest option is for us to use the independent arbiter established by the Government, unless there are strong reasons for ignoring its advice. It would have to involve a consensus extending beyond any single party in this House. Our position has been consistent. When the Electoral Commission said that it could positively recommend only two regions, we said, "Fair enough—two regions will be involved." When it reviewed the situation and said that it could accept a third region, Yorkshire and Humberside, we went along with that and, in another place, tabled an amendment to extend the range of the scheme.

Kevin Barron: My simple question is whether, if the Electoral Commission said that the electoral returning officer in the north-west should go ahead with a pilot there, the hon. Gentleman would believe that there should be a pilot in the north-west. That is the opposite argument to that used by his noble Friends in the other place.

David Heath: That is precisely not the case. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when we last debated this issue the question was that the pilot areas should comprise those that the Electoral Commission could positively recommend, with no stipulation about how many there should be. The Government rejected that option and he voted against it, as he was not prepared to accept it.

Andy Burnham: Does the fact that the Electoral Commission made a firm recommendation on two regions and said that others were potentially suitable not suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it was inviting the Government to make recommendations on which further regions should be included?

David Heath: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has by now read the most recent letter from the Electoral Commission, which makes it quite clear that that is not what it said. The commission said that it could not positively recommend the other regions, and it placed in third position, as runner up, Scotland, whose merits the Government have not for one moment appeared to consider. Instead, they have chosen two other regions.

Russell Brown: rose

David Heath: I shall not give way, because I should like to make a little more progress.
	An important constitutional matter is involved in this debate. Much play has been made of the fact that this is an example of the unelected House acting as a block on the settled will of the elected House. Setting aside for the moment the fact that some of us strongly believe that the other place should not be an unelected House and are waiting rather impatiently for the Government to do something about that rather than simply wringing their hands because the Prime Minister will not agree with his party on the subject, do we not have to consider the basic constitutional issue that the almost paramount duty of the other place in a bicameral system is to protect our constitutional arrangements if they are under threat of abuse? If a future Government decided, on their own majority and without the support of any Opposition parties, that they wished to abolish or postpone elections or change the voting system off their own bat, I hope that every single Labour Member would expect the Lords to take an interest in that and to protect the constitution of this country, unwritten though it is.

Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman think carefully about the problem facing all those who will have to administer the election in the north-west? If his proposals went through, they would have to have a traditional election in which a large number of people would apply for postal votes because they were angry leading to an exceptionally high number of postal votes. To run the two systems together is particularly difficult for electoral officers, so would it not be sensible to accept one system? It will be implemented at the very last minute, and it should be a postal system.

David Heath: We should not be in this position. The Government let the Bill lie on the Table for two months and did nothing with it. They then decided that everything had to be done in a hurry, and their position has become absurd. They jeopardised all the arrangements that returning officers have to make, including the printing of ballot papers. I am concerned about the Government's conduct.

Chris Bryant: May I return the hon. Gentleman to the point that he made a few moments ago? He asked what would happen if a Government proposed to suspend elections indefinitely or for a considerable period, but I am sure that he knows, because it is a piece of Liberal legislation, that the Parliament Act 1911 specifically recommends which systems arise if a Government want to change the date of a general election. That is clear. Surely, the point is that we need a new Parliament Act to legislate properly on arrangements between the other place and this Chamber. This ping-pong, which completely flouts the Salisbury convention, brings the whole parliamentary system into disrepute.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For an intervention, that was an extremely long speech, and it took us further and further away from the narrower point that is at the heart of this matter.

David Heath: I take your advice on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The other place has not only a perfect right but a duty to lay a constraining hand on this House if a single party in it chooses to ignore the advice of the Electoral Commission and other parties represented in this Chamber. That is an important constitutional issue to which we must return at another stage.
	What is so bizarre about the whole situation is that, as the Bill stands, the Government have what they asked for. It is like a toddler in a supermarket who says, "I want three lollies. I want three lollies". The sensible mother says, "No, you can have two lollies—the third would make you sick." The child throws all its toys out the pram and has an almighty tantrum, and eventually the parent reconsiders and says, "All right, all right; you can have three." What is the response of the toddler? He throws all his toys out the pram again and says, "I want four now. I want four. Three isn't good enough."
	How can we deal with a Government who behave in that way? The Under-Secretary's embarrassment is palpable, because neither he nor the Lord Chancellor is running this show. How demeaning it is for the Lord Chancellor the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to have his actions constrained by the Deputy Prime Minister. It is the Deputy Prime Minister who goes along to talk to the Electoral Commission. That is nothing to do with his brief, but he chooses to do so. He is the one who writes letters to the commission nothing to do with him, but he does so. He is the one who sits in on our debates and makes absurd comments from a sedentary position. They are nothing to do with him, but he does so.

Christopher Leslie: rose

David Heath: The Minister is going to say that he is not demeaned by that situation. He will have to give a pretty clear explanation of why not.

Christopher Leslie: The Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility for local government. The June elections are for local government seats, so surely it is right for the Deputy Prime Minister to take an interest in them. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Deputy Prime Minister is elected, like all other Members in this House? Does the hon. Gentleman not see any virtue in the fact that we are elected, and should have our will and the decisions that we make in this House of Commons upheld?

David Heath: We are the masters now. The Minister has official responsibility for electoral arrangements, yet another Department interferes in everything that he does and says that he cannot have what he originally asked for. That is not joined-up government; it is bullying by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Labour party for their own objectives. That is what we object to so strongly.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the Minister's lickspittle conduct is extremely effective. Does he agree that the historical musings of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the Salisbury convention are wholly inapplicable in this case given the absence of a manifesto commitment? Does he recall that, on any of the three occasions during the Conservative government highlighted by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), the Labour party complained about the behaviour of the upper House? I do not recall that.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman invites me to do two things. First, he invites me to engage in a discussion with the hon. Member for Rhondda that Mr. Deputy Speaker has said is beyond the scope of this debate, so I shall not do so. Secondly, he invites me to support the view that another place without an elected mandate ought to frustrate the will of this House when it considers matters other than the constitution and the protection of human rights and liberty, which I think are its proper province. I am not prepared to do that, because I want reform of the other place and will not defend its present arrangements.
	I will, however, defend the right of another place, as constituted, to look dispassionately at legislation before it and to take a view which is nothing to do with my arranging my troops at the other end. For heaven's sake, I could not even arrange my colleagues behind me. If more than one were here at the moment, I might try to do so.
	I am not in a position to tell my colleagues in the other place how to vote; they will reach their own judgment. At the moment, their judgment is that the Government are engaged in a process of bullying and inappropriate action that is against all the tenets of our constitutional settlement, and they are right to take that view. I just wish that the Government would accept that they have the Bill that they asked for in the first place, and that they would please stop throwing their toys out of the pram, and behave like a grown-up Government.

Andrew Miller: I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I am moved to do so by some interesting distortions of the truth. I challenge any Member who served on the Standing Committee considering the Bill that gave birth to the Electoral Commission, or who participated in any of the subsequent stages, to tell me that any Member, at any stage, moved an amendment that sought to give the commission the power to instruct. [Interruption.] Stop chuntering over there! That never happened, and it was never the intention of this House or of the upper House, so far as I can see, that the commission be given a power to instruct. It is there to give advice, and advice it has given to the Government and to this House.

Robert Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have been present in Committee Room 11, where the Minister said that the Government were taking instructions from the commission in respect of electoral boundaries because they were required to do so by European legislation. So it has already been stated in legislation that the commission should be supreme, and that it should be obeyed when giving advice in this area. We are saying that when such advice is given, it should be taken extremely seriously.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the subject of boundaries, but it has nothing to do with the procedural process.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that the Lords have a duty to protect the constitution. There is one fundamental and overriding constitutional point that must take precedence over all else: that only one House is elected. We have yet to have in its entirety the debate on the nature of the second Chamber, what its powers ought ultimately to be, and whether, indeed, it should even exist. A few Members present voted for its abolition [Interruption.] I hear some cheers from behind me. At this point the second Chamber has no ability constitutionally to put aside the powers of this House.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) hinted, the Conservatives are riding on the coat-tails of the Liberal Democrats in this Chamber, in the upper House and, indeed, in the north-west. They have no policy of their own. They are looking for convenient electoral gain, and they seek to achieve it through a mechanism that would minimise turnout.

David Borrow: Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that not a single north-west Liberal Democrat Member is in the Chamber to explain why they are preventing their constituents from voting by post in June?

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley said was spot on. At local government level, Liverpool city council seems terrified of the concept of higher turnout. In what better place could we campaign for higher turnout than in Liverpool, where, regrettably, turnout has been far too low for many years? So far as Liverpool city council is concerned, the Liberal Democrats are frightened of a higher turnout.

Andy Burnham: We are probably 10 weeks away from the elections. Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important voices now belong not to those in this Chamber or in the one down the Corridor, or to those in the Electoral Commission, but to the returning officers in the north-west and the regional returning officer? According to my information, they are all in favour of postal voting going ahead.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point and any right-thinking person will agree with him, but that does not mean that he will get unanimous support in this Chamber.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome on distancing himself last week from the outrageous statement of the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Chris Davies, that people who want postal voting are lazy. Why does the hon. Gentleman not demonstrate his anger at that statement by voting with us tonight?

Patrick Cormack: Before making one or two brief points, I should point out to the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that elevating paid officials the electoral registration officers above Members of either House is rather strange parliamentary logic.
	The other place has as much right to take the stand that it has taken on this issue as it had to throw out Mrs. Thatcher's War Crimes Bill. One should remind Labour Members that the House of Lords has behaved with a degree of vigour and robustness, no matter which party has been in government. All that it is seeking to do on this occasion is to look properly at what the Electoral Commission is recommending. No matter what sophistry Labour Members indulge in, the fact is that the commission has said that it does not believe that there should be a pilot in the north-west.

Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: Not yet. The commission's statement is a fact, whatever arguments Labour Members might advance and whatever the Minister might say. Indeed, he has changed his mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) pointed out. The Minister took one line in December and is now taking a very different one although, admittedly, he has taken it for the past eight weeks. In taking that very different line, he is flying in the face of the commission's advice. This House is right to listen to that advice, and it would be far better advised to say, "Let us have three pilots," which would constitute a concession on the part of many. Frankly, I would rather have no pilots at all. I do not like the idea of compulsory postal voting, but I recognise the fact that the commission has been asked to make some recommendations, and that the figure of two pilots has been increased to three. However, I recognise I ask the Minister to do likewise that the commission does not believe that the north-west should have a compulsory postal ballot.

Andy Burnham: rose

Patrick Cormack: Whatever the hon. Gentleman might say, he cannot change that fact. The advice is clear and unequivocal, in letters from the chairman of the commission, Mr. Sam Younger. It is a great pity that Mr. Younger, in whom I have great confidence, has been placed in this extremely difficult and embarrassing position.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Patrick Cormack: I shall certainly give way to my right hon. Friend.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend not think that the Minister should apologise to the commission and to the returning officers who have been left in muddle, owing to this Government's delay and bungling?

Patrick Cormack: Not for the first time, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, whose reputation for incisive sagacity is exceeded by no one. Mr. Sam Younger and his colleagues, who seek to serve this country and the electoral system with objective, impartial advice, should receive an apology. We are now moving, because of the ridiculous timing —

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [8 March].
	The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 172.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Christopher Leslie, Laura Moffat and Ms Bridget Prentice; Three to be the quorum of the Committee. [Mr. Heppell.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords

Employment Relations Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Disapplication of Qualifying Period and Upper Age Limit for Unfair Dismissal

For section 154 of the 1992 Act substitute
	"154 Disapplication of qualifying period and upper age limit for unfair dismissal
	Sections 108(1) and 109(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (qualifying period and upper age limit for unfair dismissal protection) do not apply to a dismissal which by virtue of section 152 or 153 is regarded as unfair for the purposes of Part 10 of that Act." .'. [Mr. Sutcliffe.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15 Burden of proof on employer to show reason for dismissal in trade union related cases 
	(1) Section 154 of the 1992 Act (exclusion of requirement as to qualifying period, etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2) insert
	"(3) On a complaint under section 152 or section 153 it shall be for the employer to show the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal." .'.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Both new clauses relate to protections provided for by section 152 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 against dismissal on grounds of trade union membership or activities. Section 153 of the 1992 Act provides similar protections against being unfairly selected for redundancy on grounds of trade union membership or activities.
	Currently, those important protections apply to all employees. In other words, the usual qualifying period of one year's service for bringing an unfair dismissal application does not apply in those cases. The usual upper age limit for unfair dismissal does not apply either. The disapplication of the qualifying period and the upper age limit is achieved by section 154 of the 1992 Act. It works by disapplying the qualifying period and the upper age limit "if it is shown" that the sole or principal reason for dismissal, or selecting the employee for redundancy, was an inadmissible reason under section 152 of the 1992 Act.
	The protections against dismissal on trade union-related grounds are long-standing rights. Indeed, they were among the first "day one" employment rights ever introduced, in the mid-1970s. Perhaps as a result, the language used in section 154 to disapply the qualifying period and upper age limit is peculiar to that section. It has not been followed by later provisions that have created day-one rights against unfair dismissal on other grounds.
	The wording of section 154 has caused problems. It has been interpreted by the courts as placing the onus on the employee that is complaining of unfair dismissal and who has under a year's service, to show that the employer's decision in dismissing him was taken for an inadmissible trade union reason. In other words, the burden of proof is on the employee to show the employer's reason for dismissal. That is intrinsically difficult for the employee to do, given his lack of detailed knowledge of the employer's behaviours and motivations. That approach contrasts sharply with all other cases of unfair dismissal where the burden of proof is on the employer to show the reason for the dismissal.
	In other words, the peculiar wording of section 154 has created an anomaly. Indeed, the burden of proof would vary where two employees one with more than 12 months' service and the other with six months' service complained of being dismissed for belonging to a trade union. In the first case, the burden of proof would rest on the employer and in the second it would rest on the employee. There are no justifiable reasons for such differential treatment. It is basically an accident of history.
	New clause 4 will rectify the anomaly by replacing the current version of section 154 with a new one that uses different wording drawn from other day-one rights to disapply the qualifying period and upper age limit. The new wording ensures that the burden of showing what the reason for dismissal was will now rest on the employer.
	New clause 15 also attempts to rectify that anomaly by inserting a new subsection into section 154 that provides that the burden of proof for the reason for the dismissal is on the employer. It does not, however, replace the "it is shown" wording that has caused difficulties for the courts. For that reason, the wording of new clause 4 is to be preferred.
	The number of individuals affected by the change is small. I am glad to say that cases of alleged dismissal on trade union grounds are few, but that is no reason why we should leave the current imperfect wording of section 154 as it is.

Henry Bellingham: As the Minister pointed out, the new clause reverses the burden of proof and we do not necessarily have any difficulty with that, but we are very unhappy at the complete lack of consultation on the new clause with any of the key bodies.
	The Minister said that the so-called anomaly dated back to 1992, and if his legal advice has persuaded him that there is indeed an anomaly he is right to correct it. However, although there has been a lot of consultation on the Bill it was published a long, long time ago and there have been various White Papers and endless discussions with organisations and bodies most of the employer organisations did not see the new clauses until today. The Government tabled the new clauses only on Wednesday and did not tell those organisations, so they had only two and a bit working days to discover that the provisions had been tabled, which is not good enough.
	The Minister made great play of the fact that the Bill was about partnership and that there was a consensus-building process. He talked about always getting everybody on board and discussing things with all parties and when we began our consideration of the Bill the atmosphere was reasonably positive, because everyone felt that they had been consulted. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) pointed out, the Government are hanging new provisions on this measure as though it were a Christmas tree. Such provisions could do not only positive things, as the Minister claims for the new clause, but many other things. The Minister told us not to panic because the Government would do nothing that was untoward or would break the spirit of consensus built up with the various organisations, yet unfortunately that is exactly what has happened.
	We are not especially enamoured of the changing of the burden of proof under new clause 4. As the Minister explains, it will be up to the employer to show that it was not trade union activity or involvement that led to either discipline or dismissal. He claims that there is an anomaly, but any change in the burden of proof is a serious matter, as it is a precious component of our legal system. Why did the Government not consult the employer organisations? Why were they left in the dark until this morning? He has created much ill will owing not to the substance of the new clause and the other proposals but to the lack of consultation.
	How many tribunal cases will be affected every year by the change in the burden of proof? That is a serious matter.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Government make a superficially sensible proposal it is even more important to discuss it with those who have to deal with it? Although they think that they are producing something that will be very good, something might have been missed, which is why consultation is so important, even though most people might feel that the proposal seemed perfectly sensible.

Henry Bellingham: My right hon. Friend is right. He brings a huge amount of experience to the discussion, having done an excellent job not only when he served in the Minister's place some years ago but in more senior positions. The key is consultation working things out with the various organisations. It is obvious that lawyers for various trade unions have been pushing the matter, so will the Minister tell the House why he did not properly consult the Institute of Directors, the Engineering Employers Federation, the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI?

NOTHING

NOTHING

NOTHING

NOTHING

John McDonnell: I welcome new clause 4, which is better worded than my proposed new clause 15. In the spirit of consensus, I merely point out that, in unfair dismissal cases that are trade union related, the new clause simply maintains consistency with other cases, where the burden of proof is with employers. It is on that basis that we should move forward. Whatever lack of consultation there may have been, there is general approval for such a provision and an awareness that it was required, especially since the case of Smith v. Hayle town council. It is an improvement in the law and should be greatly welcomed.

Jonathan Djanogly: In relation to the comments that have just been made, I merely point out that although new clause 15 includes the words, "After subsection (2) insert", section 154 of the 1992 Act does not have a subsection (2).

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am sorry that we have started off in a different vein from our time in Committee.
	The point about consultation was well made. We want to hold full consultation with everybody who is affected by the Bill, but Members will be aware that we held an important debate about the Wilson and Palmer judgment and its effect in bringing about significant changes in the rights to trade union membership. That also relates to issues such as those dealt with by new clause 4. The provision is not a bauble on a Christmas tree, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) claimed earlier and during the debate on the programme motion last week. He ended his contribution to that debate by saying that he was not a happy camper, but I hope that we can make him a happy camper this evening by explaining that there were appropriate reasons for our proposals. A small number of tribunal cases are affected and I shall write to him with the number. In fact, we informed the CBI, the EEF and TUC that we would be tabling the provisions.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for not pressing new clause 15. It is entirely sensible to put the burden of proof on employers for reasons that have been outlined and accepted, so I ask the House to accept the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Additional Duties on Employers Informed of Ballots

(1) Paragraph 26 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act (duties of employer informed of requirement to arrange ballot on recognition etc) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1) for "three" substitute "five".
	(3) After sub-paragraph (4) insert
	"(4ZA) The fourth duty is to refrain from making any offer to any or all of the workers constituting the bargaining unit which
	(a) has or is likely to have the effect of inducing any or all of them not to attend any relevant meeting between the union (or unions) and the workers constituting the bargaining unit, and
	(b) is not reasonable in the circumstances.
	(4ZB) The fifth duty is to refrain from taking or threatening to take any action against a worker solely or mainly on the grounds that he
	(a) attended or took part in any relevant meeting between the union (or unions) and the workers constituting the bargaining unit, or
	(b) indicated his intention to attend or take part in such a meeting.
	(4ZC) A meeting is a relevant meeting in relation to a worker for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4ZA) and (4ZB) if
	(a) it is organised in accordance with any agreement reached concerning the second duty or as a result of a step ordered to be taken under paragraph 27 to remedy a failure to comply with that duty, and
	(b) it is one which the employer is, by such an agreement or order as is mentioned in paragraph (a), required to permit the worker to attend.
	(4ZD) Without prejudice to the generality of the second duty imposed by this paragraph, an employer is to be taken to have failed to comply with that duty if
	(a) he refuses a request for a meeting between the union (or unions) and any or all of the workers constituting the bargaining unit to be held in the absence of the employer or any representative of his (other than one who has been invited to attend the meeting) and it is not reasonable in the circumstances for him to do so,
	(b) he or a representative of his attends such a meeting without having been invited to do so,
	(c) he seeks to record or otherwise be informed of the proceedings at any such meeting and it is not reasonable in the circumstances for him to do so, or
	(d) he refuses to give an undertaking that he will not seek to record or otherwise be informed of the proceedings at any such meeting unless it is reasonable in the circumstances for him to do either of those things.
	(4ZE) The fourth and fifth duties do not confer any rights on a worker; but that does not affect any other right which a worker may have."
	(4) For sub-paragraph (8) substitute
	"(8) Each of the powers specified in sub-paragraph (9) shall be taken to include power to issue Codes of Practice
	(a) about reasonable access for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), and
	(b) about the fourth duty imposed by this paragraph.
	(9) The powers are
	(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);
	(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a)."
	(5) In paragraph 27(1) of that Schedule (remedial order in case of employer's failure to comply with duties under paragraph 26) for "three duties imposed" substitute "duties imposed on him".
	(6) Paragraph 118 of that Schedule (duties of employer informed of requirement to arrange ballot on derecognition etc) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) to (8).
	(7) In sub-paragraph (1) for "three" substitute "five".
	(8) After sub-paragraph (4) insert
	"(4A) The fourth duty is to refrain from making any offer to any or all of the workers constituting the bargaining unit which
	(a) has or is likely to have the effect of inducing any or all of them not to attend any relevant meeting between the union (or unions) and the workers constituting the bargaining unit, and
	(b) is not reasonable in the circumstances.
	(4B) The fifth duty is to refrain from taking or threatening to take any action against a worker solely or mainly on the grounds that he
	(a) attended or took part in any relevant meeting between the union (or unions) and the workers constituting the bargaining unit, or
	(b) indicated his intention to attend or take part in such a meeting.
	(4C) A meeting is a relevant meeting in relation to a worker for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4A) and (4B) if
	(a) it is organised in accordance with any agreement reached concerning the second duty or as a result of a step ordered to be taken under paragraph 119 to remedy a failure to comply with that duty, and
	(b) it is one which the employer is, by such an agreement or order as is mentioned in paragraph (a), required to permit the worker to attend.
	(4D) Without prejudice to the generality of the second duty imposed by this paragraph, an employer is to be taken to have failed to comply with that duty if
	(a) he refuses a request for a meeting between the union (or unions) and any or all of the workers constituting the bargaining unit to be held in the absence of the employer or any representative of his (other than one who has been invited to attend the meeting) and it is not reasonable in the circumstances for him to do so,
	(b) he or a representative of his attends such a meeting without having been invited to do so,
	(c) he seeks to record or otherwise be informed of the proceedings at any such meeting and it is not reasonable in the circumstances for him to do so, or
	(d) he refuses to give an undertaking that he will not seek to record or otherwise be informed of the proceedings at any such meeting unless it is reasonable in the circumstances for him to do either of those things.
	(4E) The fourth and fifth duties do not confer any rights on a worker; but that does not affect any other right which a worker may have."
	(9) For sub-paragraph (8) substitute
	"(8) Each of the powers specified in sub-paragraph (9) shall be taken to include power to issue Codes of Practice
	(a) about reasonable access for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), and
	(b) about the fourth duty imposed by this paragraph.
	(9) The powers are
	(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);
	(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a)."
	(10) In paragraph 119(1) of that Schedule (remedial order in case of employer's failure to comply with duties under paragraph 118) for "three duties imposed" substitute "duties imposed on him".'. [Mr. Sutcliffe.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 6 Unfair practices in relation to recognition ballots.
	Government new clause 7 Unfair practices in relation to derecognition ballots.
	Government new clause 8 Unfair practices: power to make provision about periods before notice of ballot.
	New clause 2 Intimidation
	After paragraph 51 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act insert
	"Intimidation
	51A If during the union recognition procedure a union uses undue force or intimidating measures to get recognition then the CAC shall have the right to investigate this at the request of the employer or any worker and if such measures are found to have been used the CAC shall terminate the recognition procedure immediately.".'.
	Government amendments Nos. 4 to 6.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The intimidation of workers during recognition and derecognition ballots has been repeatedly raised with the Government, both during the review of the Employment Relations Act 1999 and during the consideration of this Bill. Both unions and employers have brought to my attention cases of alleged intimidation and have called on the Government to act to prevent such behaviour.
	At the last sitting of the Standing Committee, I gave notice of our intention to move these amendments on Report. This is undoubtedly a difficult aspect, and many issues had to be considered before we could table the amendments. It has inevitably taken some time to complete the process, which explains why we could not table them sooner.

Jonathan Djanogly: In response to my question about this matter in Committee I think that it was on 2 March the Minister said that he would table a new clause shortly, so can he explain why we did not see it until late last week?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I have tried to outline the difficulties involved and I hope that when the hon. Gentleman has heard what I have to say he will accept the reasons.
	The word "intimidation" covers a wide range of possible conduct, and new clauses 5, 6 and 7 deal with the main behaviours that cause offence, at the time when most intimidation is likely to occur namely, during the period of a recognition or derecognition ballot. New clause 8 allows us to deal with behaviour at other stages of the recognition or derecognition process should that be thought necessary.
	Our objective, however, is not to stifle all campaigning activity. It is important that the workers concerned should hear from both the union and the employer in order to reach an informed decision on the important issue of recognition. However, that campaigning activity should be fair, and parties should not use underhand methods to influence the voting behaviours of the relevant work force.
	New clause 5 and amendment No. 4, which is consequential to it, deal with intimidatory behaviour by the employer at, or concerning, access meetings between the union and workers in the bargaining unit during the ballot period. Those are meetings held to enable the employer to satisfy the duty imposed upon him to allow the union reasonable access to workers in the bargaining unit.
	When an employer is informed by the Central Arbitration Committee that a ballot is to be held, he must comply with three duties, which are set out in paragraph 26 of schedule A1 to the 1992 Act, inserted by the 1999 Act. The first is to co-operate generally with the union and the qualified independent person appointed to conduct the ballot; the third is to give the CAC the names and home addresses of the workers in the bargaining unit, so that ballot papers can be sent to them; and the second is to give the union reasonable access to the workers in the bargaining unit, so that the union can inform the workers of the purpose of the ballot and seek their support and their views on the issues involved.
	New clause 5 deals with the potential for problems to arise when such access is granted. Unions have alleged that employers have sought to interfere with access meetings: for example, I have received complaints that employers have offered higher rates of overtime to workers to stay at their posts rather than attend an access meeting, or an employer may give workers the option of going home early when such a meeting is scheduled. There have also been complaints that employers have monitored who attended and who said what at access meetings. It is not for me to assess the accuracy of those allegations, and I do not want to be drawn into specific cases.

Jonathan Djanogly: Is the Minister honestly saying that if an employer allows an employee, of his own free will, to go home, that will be a breach of the legislation?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The key element is the employer's purpose the reason the individual was allowed to go home. If the hon. Gentleman allows me to continue, he will hear our reasons, and I am sure that he will fully support our aims.
	There is evidence that plainly shows that there is the potential for the sort of problem that I have described to arise. It has always been the Government's intention that access meetings should be private between the union and the workers in the bargaining unit, unless the employer or his representatives are invited to attend by the union. Likewise, at the time of the 1999 Act, we envisaged union access being free from the sorts of interference that I have just described. The statutory code of practice on access to workers during recognition and derecognition ballots, which we produced at that time, clearly sets that out, but the code merely provides guidance, which parties might take into account and which the CAC might consider when determining whether an employer has failed to allow access in accordance with the duty imposed on him. The code does not have the force of law and, in the light of experience, we feel that we need to provide explicit statutory provisions on those points.
	New clause 5 inserts into paragraph 26 of the recognition schedule new provisions that make it plain that interference with union access arrangements is not permissible. The clause places on employers during the ballot period two new obligations in addition to the three existing duties. They appear in the clause as the fourth and fifth duties. The fourth duty, set out in new sub-paragraph (4ZA) of the recognition schedule, is to refrain from making offers to workers to induce them not to attend a union access meeting. We recognise, however, that there might be circumstances in which it might be reasonable for employers to make such offers; the clause therefore allows for such exceptional circumstances at new sub-paragraph (4ZA)(b). For example, if the employer wanted to send workers on a training course that was important for their career development, or if it was essential to maintain a minimum staffing of machinery during access meetings, it might well be reasonable to make offers to the workers in question to attend training or monitor the machinery. The CAC would examine all the circumstances of the case and decide whether such behaviour was reasonable. We intend to issue a new code of practice that will give more detailed guidance on these matters, which the CAC must take into account. We will, of course, consult on the code in draft.
	The fifth duty is not to take action or make threats against workers for attending a union access meeting or for indicating that they plan to attend a meeting. Again, we have built in some necessary flexibility for employers by ensuring that action that was primarily taken for other reasons would not constitute a breach of the fifth duty. That would enable the employer to take action against a worker for their unacceptable behaviour damaging the employer's property, for example when attending a meeting.
	The new clause inserts a new sub-paragraph (4ZD) into the recognition schedule to ensure some privacy for access meetings. This makes it clear that an employer is in breach of his duty to provide reasonable access if he or his representative attends a meeting without being invited. It also makes it clear that the employer is in breach if he seeks to monitor what goes on at a meeting. Again, the provisions contain some necessary flexibility to provide for cases in which such attendance or monitoring is reasonable. Let me give an example of what might constitute reasonable behaviour in these circumstances. In some workplaces, it might be impossible, or even dangerous, to switch off security cameras in the room where an access meeting is held; so, if the union was prepared to hold the meeting in such a room, it might indeed be reasonable for the event to be filmed. Subsections (6) to (10) of new clause 5 impose the same duties in respect of derecognition ballots.
	The sanction for a failure to comply with either of the new duties is the same as the existing sanction for a failure to provide reasonable access. The CAC may order the employer to remedy the failure by taking whatever steps it considers appropriate. If the employer does not comply with that order, the CAC may award the union automatic recognition.
	Amendment No. 4 makes a consequential change to clause 5. Access allows the workers to get both sides of the picture, so that they can make a well informed decision when they come to cast their vote. Any attempt to undermine that access is unjustifiable. The majority of employers who go through the recognition procedure already observe the duties. The amendments will make it clear beyond doubt to the minority that certain behaviour is unreasonable in those circumstances.
	New clauses 6 and 7 and amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are closely linked and deal with standards of conduct during recognition and derecognition ballots. I have received complaints and evidence from both unions and employers about conduct that they believe is intended to frighten and intimidate workers into voting a particular way in the ballot. For example, I have received allegations of employers dismissing a union activist to undermine the union's campaign and to intimidate other workers; of union representatives making threatening visits to workers at their homes; of employers threatening reprisals such as the withdrawal of certain benefits if workers vote for recognition; and of both employers and unions making statements that grossly misrepresent, denigrate or even libel the other party. According to research for the TUC, US-style union-busting tactics are rare in this country; none the less, I am sure that intimidation can and does occur. I am concerned to make sure that it does not increase and to send a message that such behaviour is reprehensible and will not be tolerated.
	Our policy is based on a number of general principles. First, and importantly, the provisions are double-edged they apply to both the employer and the union. As I have said, I have received representations from all sides of the debate. I note that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk also believes that this is an important issue. I believe that it is only right and fair that the same standards of behaviour apply to both parties. Secondly, in identifying these practices, we have in part drawn upon rules of conduct for public general and local elections set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983. The unfair practices set out in new clause 6 are a reflection of conduct that is prohibited under that Act. I think the House will agree that the standards that apply in the elections that return us as Members of Parliament are an excellent starting point when setting standards of behaviour for democratic ballots in other settings.
	New clause 6 deals with recognition ballots. It introduces a duty on both employers and unions to refrain from engaging in unfair practices during the ballot period. A party will have committed an unfair practice if, with the purpose of influencing the ballot, it does any of the things listed in new paragraph 27A(2)(a) to (f). These are: offering inducements or bribes to workers to vote in a particular way or to abstain from voting; coercing or attempting to coerce workers to reveal how they intend to vote or how they actually voted after the event; dismissing or threatening to dismiss a worker; taking or threatening to take disciplinary action against a worker; subjecting or threatening to subject a worker to a detriment; or using and attempting to use undue influence.
	Let me make it clear that the Government support the right of all the parties employers, unions and workers alike to campaign for their preferred result in a recognition or derecognition ballot. We are not seeking to limit the right to engage in legitimate campaigning activity. The unfair practices that I have listed do not preclude people from legitimately trying to influence the result of the ballot, but they are designed to prevent people using conduct such as threats or deceit, rather than persuading people by the strength of their arguments. Nor are the Government suggesting that employers should not be able to dismiss or otherwise discipline workers during the ballot period if they are guilty of misconduct or poor performance. A dismissal or other disciplinary action will be an unfair practice only where it is done with a view to influencing the result of the ballot. Furthermore, for the CAC to find that a complaint is well founded, it must be satisfied that the practice in question changed

NOTHING

NOTHING

Jonathan Djanogly: Is the Minister saying that even if there is gross intimidation, violence or other totally unacceptable behaviour, the ballot will not be affected that it will all be forgotten? What will happen in such circumstances?

Gerry Sutcliffe: No, I am not saying that. I have made it clear that we expect people to behave reasonably. If someone acts inappropriately or there is gross misconduct during the ballot period, the employer will be able to use his normal procedures to deal with the matter.
	We are saying that it works both ways. If the employer is doing things that are not proper in terms of the ballot, the union has the right to complain to the CAC.

Jon Cruddas: I welcome the clauses but I raise one point under paragraph 27B(6). Does my hon. Friend think that the provision could create an incentive for the employer to take action against the union, even where it had done nothing wrong, merely to protract the process?

Gerry Sutcliffe: That is why we have placed great faith in the role of the CAC in determining motivation and the purpose for the actions of either the employer or the trade union. On that basis, the CAC will come to a decision. It is interesting that we have taken powers to go further in the period before the ballot if we feel that there is overwhelming evidence so to act.
	The CAC must be satisfied that the practice in question changed, or was likely to change, the voting intentions or actual voting behaviour of a worker. This is intended to discourage frivolous claims. We do not want either employers or unions to be punished for very minor transgressions that are unlikely to have affected anyone's vote. The Government will issue a code of practice that will give detailed guidance to the parties on what is acceptable conduct and what is not.
	Hon. Members will note that new clause 6 does not contain remedies for cases where a complaint of unfair practices is upheld by the CAC. Paragraph 27C contains instead a power for the Secretary of State to provide for sanctions and remedies by order. The Government's intention was to set out those sanctions in full in these new clauses and amendments. However, this is a complicated area. The sanctions will, among other things, allow the CAC to re-run a ballot where appropriate, and we want to consider further a number of complexities associated with that. It is my intention that, following more detailed consultation with stakeholders, the Government will propose amendments in the other place to put these sanctions in the Bill.

Jon Cruddas: Is my hon. Friend able to say now whether the sanctions or remedies could include automatic recognition, which he mentioned earlier, in respect of activities before the 20-day ballot period?

Gerry Sutcliffe: That is one of the things that will be considered during consultation. I am told by Opposition Members that they want to see consultation take place. [Interruption.] However, I am hearing noises that perhaps they do not want it to take place.
	New clause 7 introduces identical provisions making it an offence to use unfair practices in ballots on derecognition. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 make consequential amendments to clause 11. They insert cross-references to the powers to make sanctions in new clauses 6 and 7.
	In addition, the Government have tabled new clause 8. It provides an order-making power for the Secretary of State to extend these rules of conduct to the earlier stages of the statutory recognition process.
	Alleged intimidation has occurred, in the main during the ballot period. This is understandable. That period is the critical point where workers decide whether they want union recognition. We recognise that parties, perhaps as a result of the protections that we are introducing for the ballot period, may be tempted to bring forward any intimidatory conduct to an earlier stage. That is why we want to be armed with the tools to respond quickly. Let there be no doubt that if evidence emerges of this happening on any scale, we will not hesitate to introduce further measures to ensure that workers can exercise their choice freely and without fear. Of course, if and when we exercise this power, we can draw on the experiences gained from the operation of these provisions during the balloting period.
	New clause 2 was tabled by Conservative Members but it has been grouped with the Government's new clauses and amendments. I am pleased that Opposition Members also recognise the importance of tackling intimidation during recognition applications. Of course, as always, their interest is one-sided. The new clause does not deal with the more prevalent form of intimidation by employers against workers and union members. As I have said, the Government believe that intimidation by any party is unacceptable. I hope that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk agrees. I urge him not to press the clause.
	I have spoken for a long time and I am grateful to the House for its patience. However, these are detailed new clauses and amendments and I wished to explain them to the satisfaction of the House. The Government's new clauses are major amendments. I believe that they strengthen the Bill and safeguard the integrity of the statutory procedure. The issues that they address are of concern to everyone involved and I believe that the solutions that they present are balanced and reasonable. I am pleased to commend them to the House.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the new clauses and amendments in some detail. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that they are extremely complicated. It is a great pity that we did not have them at an earlier stage, a view that is shared by many outside this place. Even at this stage, as the Minister said, they are not complete, as he has not finished his detailed work on some of them.
	As for new clause 5, as the Minister explained, there are at present three duties on the employer once the CAC has decided that there should be a ballot. The first is to co-operate with the ballot, the second is to provide access to the workers and the third is to supply names and addresses. There are two further duties. The first is to refrain from making any offer, and the second is to refrain from taking, or threatening to take, any action against a worker because he attended the meeting.
	The clause then sets out various other matters regarding the conduct of employers in respect of meetings to discuss recognition and derecognition. Most of that is pretty reasonable but I shall raise a couple of points. Sub-paragraph (4ZB) refers to the threat of action on the ground that the employee "attended . . . any relevant meeting". Let us take a situation in a small or medium-sized company where a trade union activist may want to attend a number of meetings. In addition, there may be two or three other activists in the company who also want to attend meetings. There might be three, four or five meetings. What would happen if the company said to perhaps two of those people who were attending the meetings that that was affecting their performance at work and that only one should attend? As the law stands, the employer would not be allowed to do that, even though he took the view, in good faith, that consistent attendance at the meetings by a number of employees was affecting their performance at work? Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
	Sub-paragraph (4ZD) applies to the situation where an employer
	"seeks to record or otherwise be informed of the proceedings".
	What happens in a small or medium-sized company? It may be a family-owned business, where relations between management and employees are excellent. What happens if a managing director asks, en passant, "How did the meeting go last night?" Technically, he would be in breach of the new clause. What is the Minister's view on that? We are trying to stress the trust that is so often built up in small companies between management and employees. Often, in close-knit family businesses, there are no stand-offs. There is no suspicion. Unfortunately, in our judgment, the clause could make things worse. Perhaps the Minister will comment on those two points.
	New clauses 6 and 7 relate to unfair practices during ballots. The Minister said that paragraph 27A(1) and (2) is based on the Representation of the People Act 1983. I am slightly concerned about sub-paragraphs (a) to (f), where "undue influence" is mentioned. What exactly is undue influence? It is difficult to define. There is huge potential for litigation. Someone making an allegation to the CAC does not do so on oath; they merely make an assertion. We are concerned that the term "undue influence" may lead to a great deal of confusion and trouble.
	Apart from those comments, the two clauses may appear reasonable, but, as the Minister said, we are being asked to agree to clauses in which there is no mention of any penalties. The Minister says that he will return at a later stage to tell us what the penalties will be. It seems extraordinary that the Minister has brought the clauses forward we are being asked to pass them without there being any indication of what the penalties will be. For example, if the employer is at fault, presumably the penalty will be the CAC ordering immediate recognition. What happens if the employee is at fault? Will he have immediately to withdraw the application? If there has been a serious breach and there is a serious example of intimidation, would employees not be allowed to apply again for a certain period? None of that is answered.
	Paragraph 27C(1) is drawn extremely widely. It is the part of the clause that will enable the Secretary of State to come up with penalties in due course. Will that be even handed? We just do not know. It is a little shabby of the Minister to ask us to accept two important new clauses when the detail is not to hand. Why cannot the Government get it right? They have had long enough.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the matter is to be resolved by means of a statutory instrument, it would be useful if the Minister gave us an undertaking to provide a draft statutory instrument so that we could debate it and possibly amend it, rather than being faced with an unamendable instrument?

Henry Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman is right. This part of the clause is very widely drawn and there is no indication of the Government's intentions. It would be extremely helpful if they gave a commitment along those lines.
	On new clause 8, the Minister spoke about research into intimidation. He mentioned that there was no large-scale intimidation, such as that which occurs in America. He believed there was research indicating that some firms used intimidatory practices. If he cannot tell the House what that evidence is, will he put a brief in the Library or write to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) to tell him what the evidence is?
	We are discussing complicated new clauses. The Engineering Employers Federation, the CBI and many other organisations that have not been properly consulted are not yet convinced. They do not say that the new clauses are bad. They merely ask whether the provisions are a sledgehammer to crack a problem that is not nearly as serious as the Minister maintains. If the Minister wants to persuade us, will he put some research material in the Library, or at least write to me?

Jim Sheridan: If the hon. Gentleman is looking for evidence of employer intimidation, I can give him tangible evidence of employers telling employees that if they wish to join the union whose representatives are standing outside handing out the leaflets, they should let the employers know and those employers will help the employees on with their jackets. Is that not intimidation?

Henry Bellingham: I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Wilson and Palmer situation. We are discussing intimidating employees not about joining a union, but about voting in ballots. The Minister said that there was not widespread evidence, but he believed that malpractice was going on. He needs to sustain and justify his case.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I have just remembered the meeting that the hon. Gentleman had with the TUC. He was good enough to tell me that they had had an excellent debate. I am sure they told him about "Bargain or Bust? Employer responses to union organising", a discussion pamphlet published by the TUC in October 2003. That contains examples of the cases that have been outlined. No doubt the Library will get the hon. Gentleman a copy.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and I will look carefully at that document. For the record, we had a positive and constructive discussion with the TUC, with Brendan Barber and some of his colleagues. There are many issues on which we fully agreed. We intend to work together. They have asked our views because they want to work with us on a positive basis, although we told them that there are obviously some issues on which we probably will not agree.
	Finally, the Minister was rather scathing about new clause 2 and said that we cared only about the employer. In fact, we are trying to be even-handed. The penalty in our new clause is mild. It states that if there is intimidation by trade unions against employees or by employees against other employees,
	"the CAC shall terminate the recognition procedure immediately".
	We could easily have proposed a much tougher penalty. It is a mild new clause with limited scope, and it is intended to be even-handed.

Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Henry Bellingham: No. I shall draw my remarks to a close, as there is much debating to do over the next couple of hours. We are not happy with Government new clauses 6 and 7, and we shall press new clause 2 to a Division, if need be.

Frank Doran: I welcome the new clauses. They deal with an important gap that the operation of the 1999 Act has thrown up in practice serious intimidation, of which there is clear evidence in the case of a few employers.
	The principal case with which most of us are familiar concerns Sky Television at Livingston where employees were intimidated to the extent that they were threatened by the employer with relocation of the factory, wage reductions and a series of unscrupulous measures. On initial CAC examination, a majority of the work force was in favour of union recognition, but that became a thumping defeat for the union when the ballot went ahead. That is unacceptable, given that the relevant provisions of the 1999 Act were intended to operate as a disputes resolution procedure, to keep such cases clean and fair and to give everyone the opportunity of a say.
	I share the concerns expressed to the Minister by the TUC about how the Government have chosen to apply the intimidation processes. They have treated the trade union side and the employee side in exactly the same way as the employer side. The TUC presented a dossier to the Government, to which the Minister referred, as did the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). The dossier details various abuses found by the trade union side. I know that the employers have made allegations against the union, but, as far as I am aware, no specific evidence has been presented against the union side or the employee side in any particular case, simply vague allegations. Yet the same regulations are to be applied on both sides.
	The union side is happy to accept that there should be a law against intimidation on both sides. The issue is how that should be applied. What the Government propose sounds fair and equitable, but it ignores the underpinning imbalance in the workplace between the employer, who owns the premises and employs the work force, and the union, which has only limited access to the work force in the case of a recognition ballot. One need only consider the Sky Television case in Livingston to see how that operates in practice. The employer was able to make threats and get information circulating round the work force that completely transformed the view of the work force.
	The employer can say that union recognition will mean lower wages, and he has the power to put that into practice. The union cannot do that. A union can only speculate that union recognition will increase wages. To introduce a clause that hits both sides equally on every point will have unintended, unfair consequences. It will always be the union that suffers from any delay in the balloting process.

David Hamilton: Surely it can be recognised that a worker approaching a fellow worker has no power other than the power of persuasion, whereas a manager has the power to promote or demote an individual worker? That is an important distinction.

Frank Doran: That is exactly my point. All the power is with the employer, not with the union. If an employer says such things to an employee, the employee knows that the employer has the power to carry it out, which the union does not.
	There is no question but that intimidation by unions is unacceptable, but different wording is needed to capture it if it happens. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the matter and see whether a different form of words can be found to deal with that different problem when the Bill is debated in another place.

Malcolm Bruce: We have had a useful debate and a number of important points have been raised. It is interesting that there is some slight tension between the Minister and his hon. Friends. The Minister says the Government must be even-handed and make the provision apply to any party, but, not surprisingly, Members, particularly those with a strong union connection, are trying to shift the balance more favourably towards the unions, and they quote some fair examples where that would be justified.
	Right from the start of the Bill, we have all acknowledged that the climate of industrial relations in this country has been transformed in the past 10 or 15 years, partly because of legislation that has democratised the trade union movement. Given the consultation that has taken place to bring the Bill to the House, and if the evidence was available, it is surprising and a little unfortunate that such detailed new clauses have had to be introduced so late in the process. I am not saying that that is not justified, but it puts those of us who are trying genuinely to scrutinise legislation in a slightly invidious position.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) referred to the example of a company in which there is no animosity and in which the natural tendency of a manager who knows that a recognition debate is going on is to say "How's it going?" The wording gives the impression that that could become an offence. The legislation has just arrived, and we have not had time to test out how it could apply and whether it could lead to slightly silly litigation that gets in the way of good employment relations.

David Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is drawing an important distinction. As a former trade union official who became chief executive of a small company, I remind him that the determining factor rests with the chief executive or the employer. I knew, when I spoke to an employee as an employer, as opposed to a trade union official, that I could intimidate them off the cuff. However, let me make this distinction: if the relationship between the employer and employee is good, there will never be a situation in which the employee takes the employer to task.

Malcolm Bruce: I agree entirely, but we are entitled as legislators to look at what the Bill says and how it might be applied. It has already gone through my mind that I doubt that anybody will want to go to law in a good business with a constructive atmosphere, although it may take only one malicious individual to cause damage. All that I am concerned about is ensuring that the measure is not sloppily drafted and that it means what it says and does not create unnecessary problems. I think that that is a perfectly fair role for us to play in the House.
	I wish to repeat what I said in intervening on the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk about the orders, which the Minister said he would return to. The Minister made two points. The first was that further details would be brought before another place. I am afraid that that is a weary old comment. Even though we consult, we pass too many laws rather hurriedly at the end of the process, which is simply not a good way of making law. That is all that I am saying. Such a way of proceeding does not necessarily produce bad law, but it certainly does not help to produce good law; indeed, it is more likely to produce bad law, because proper consideration is not given.
	The more particular point relates to new paragraphs 27C(2) and 119C(2) to schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which both state:
	"An order under this paragraph may . . .
	(a) amend this Schedule;
	(b) apply any provision of this Schedule with such modifications . . .
	(c) confer functions on the CAC;
	(d) make provisions about the arrangement and conduct of further ballots;
	(e) include supplementary or incidental provisions;
	(f) make different provision for different cases or circumstances."
	A pretty substantial statutory instrument is being envisaged. As the Government have introduced the provision at such a late stage, it is reasonable to seek assurances. I welcome the Government's practice of publishing draft statutory instruments that can be scrutinised and debated by Select Committees and hon. Members, so that when the final secondary legislation comes before the House it will have been subjected to a form of preliminary scrutiny. We all agree that the weakness of the statutory instrument as it is proposed of course, this is the case from the point of view of the House, not the Government is that it is not amendable and that we can only vote yes or no. Given that the provision is being introduced late in the process and that it is fairly extensive, it is reasonable for us to ask the Government to give it further consideration.
	I understand the Minister's response to new clause 2, but, having considered it, I find it hard to take issue with what is proposed. In dealing with intimidation, it points to the "employer . . . or worker", so it contains reference to that point. One of the essential things that we are trying to do this is a classic position for those on the Liberal Democrat Benches is to get the balance right, as the Minister himself also said was necessary. If I may say so, that is something on which my party has a contribution to make.

Jim Sheridan: Does the hon. Gentleman share the views of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, who said that it was perfectly acceptable to tell an employee that attending a trade union meeting could affect their performance? Many of us on the Labour Benches have heard those chilling words before and then suffered the consequences.

Malcolm Bruce: I do not think that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk made that remark, although he has not contradicted the hon. Gentleman. I do not accept such views, but I accept the comment that an employer is, by definition, in a different situation. Let us be clear. Historically, there have also been situations in which trade unionists and trade union activists have used intimidating processes and put pressure on people in other ways. The reality is that the faults have arisen on both sides, but the situation has improved enormously.
	When we finish our proceedings on the Bill we support it and are not changing our position we should not introduce legislation that upsets that balance, especially so late in the process. I am saying not that the measures before us upset the balance, but that they raise in my mind some legitimate and proper concerns that we should address.

Bill Tynan: My hon. Friend the Minister is to be congratulated on introducing the Government new clauses, which I think are a response to the discussion that took place in Committee. When we discussed intimidation in Committee, hon. Members in all parts of the House recognised that it was unacceptable. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, the balance has to be got right. At present, the employers have all the cards and all the opportunities to intimidate people if they so wish. Only a small minority of employers need to be dealt with on that basis.
	I would like to make a point about definitions and to add to the request made for an explanation of the phrase "undue influence". I, too, would like the Minister to explain that term, but I would also like the Opposition spokesman to explain something. I tried to intervene on him in respect of new clause 2, which refers to circumstances in which
	"a union uses undue force or intimidating measures".
	I would be interested to hear what "undue force" and "intimidating measures" are. I have found that when a union tries to win a ballot, it will do everything it possibly can to convince people. That is usually done in a sensible way and on the basis of argument. If there was intimidation by a trade union, hon. Members in all parts of the House would say that it was unacceptable.
	I think that the balance must be got right, as has been said. In that respect, we must examine Government new clause 6 carefully, as there is a concern that it goes too far the other way and will create a situation in which the union will be unduly punished without having been involved in intimidation. I ask the Minister to look at that point.

Jonathan Djanogly: Having heard the debate thus far, my opinion is that a lot more work needs to be done on the new clauses in terms of their form and purpose. That view comes from having heard contributions from all parts of the House. I hope that the Minister will take that point away when the Bill heads to the Lords and think about it further.
	I wish to speak in support of new clause 2. There is more sense in the four lines of that new clause than in the four pages taken up by the Government's equivalents new clauses 6 and 7.

Bill Tynan: If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is more sense in the four lines of new clause 2 than in the other provisions, will he explain the meaning of
	"undue force or intimidating measures" ?

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister himself gave the straightforward example of intimidatory visits to people's homes. That is a good example, and I accept it.
	The point about new clause 2 is that it does not deal with all aspects of work. It is very specific about the recognition procedure, and it applies only during the period when it is under way. Rather than dealing with a range of areas and issues, it is again specific about undue force and intimidation. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said, it is fair and concentrates on not only the company, but the workers, and is therefore balanced across the workplace.
	Importantly, the remedy introduced by new clause 2 is simple and does not relate to criminal or civil damages. I can see the complications for the Minister, but I still say that it is unacceptable not to introduce remedies. If new clause 2 bites, it is a declaration that the recognition procedure has ended, which is a simple, straightforward way to deal with the issue.
	In Committee and during today's debate, certain hon. Members have implied that unions never use violent or intimidatory behaviour, but the behaviour of certain unions over past years has shown that, if anything, militancy is again starting to increase dramatically. There were, for example, suggestions that retained firefighters were intimidated during the miners' strike. [Interruption.] I mean the fire strike. Wildcat, unofficial strikes have occurred at, for example, British Airways and the Post Office. The climate of industrial relations has changed over the past year, but few people would say that it has changed for the better. A new generation of union leaders has come to the fore, and they are, perhaps, less conducive to the Government's way of thinking than their predecessors.

John McDonnell: British Airways headquarters is in my constituency, as is Heathrow. The unofficial action at Heathrow was voluntary action in which employees left their workplaces without any union policy or directive. Can the hon. Gentleman provide me with any evidence of intimidation, because none has been reported?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman did not hear where I was coming from. The climate has changed dramatically, and I gave the Heathrow case as an example. It is bizarre that, despite 65 pieces of employment and union legislation, the unions are not grateful, but the more they get, the more they seem to retreat into militancy, which must create a conundrum for the Government.

Jim Sheridan: On the Minister's example of union intimidation, I should be interested to hear what steps, if any, the trade unions took to sort out that business. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the question of intimidation is enshrined in most, if not all, trade union rulebooks? There is ample evidence of members or potential members of trade unions being disciplined for taking any intimidatory action whatsoever.

Jonathan Djanogly: I have given a couple of examples, and I have some more, but they can wait the GMB comes to mind.
	I want to address the Government new clauses, and in particular new clauses 6 and 7, which are extremely complicated. My particular concern is that new clauses 6 and 7 cover not only intimidation, but the effect of intimidation. If there has been intimidation but it does not affect the ballot, it will be ignored by the new clauses, which is conceptually wrong. Indeed, there should be disincentives to intimidation, and I cannot see how disincentives can be introduced unless intimidation has negative consequences.
	The second main point, which has been addressed previously, is that the Bill does not contain any remedies for intimidation, and I do not see how we can examine the effect of one without the other. Will the Minister at least clarify what the Government are thinking? Is the object to invalidate the ballot, not to allow the person or union that is doing the intimidation the chance to have a re-ballot or to punish the person who is doing the intimidation? Will the Government go down civil or criminal lines of remedy?
	It is particularly unfortunate that new clauses 5 and 8 were tabled towards the end of last week, because they contain totally new concepts. The Government have at least said that they accept in principle the idea of an intimidation clause, but new clauses 5 and 8 have come out of the blue. The Minister should tell us why those new clauses have been introduced, because I can see no reason for them.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The debate has been interesting, and it clearly sets out the differences between the parties' attitudes towards employment relations and industrial relations. Intimidation, whether it is from unions or employers, will not be tolerated and we do not want to see it. As on Second Reading, my hon. Friends have exposed cases of intimidation, but Opposition Members have failed to come up with details of unions behaving badly.
	The example that I gave of a union visiting workers' homes was raised with the Government by the CBI, which provided anecdotal evidence. It said that it could back up that claim, and we wait to see whether it can. The unions have given evidence to me and to the publication in the Library, which is available if hon. Members want to pick it up.

Bill Tynan: Will my hon. Friend indicate the volume of evidence from the trade union against the volume of evidence from the CBI? I would be particularly interested to know what action was taken on intimidation in someone's home, which, as far as I am concerned, is a criminal offence, and I would have thought that criminal charges would have been brought.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose background makes him well versed in such matters. I do not want to be drawn down the line of who did what, because intimidation from either side is unacceptable.
	On giving notice of the new clauses, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and other hon. Members were in Committee when I said that the Government would introduce new clauses on intimidation and that the matter would be complex. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) says, we are trying to achieve a new attitude towards employment relations in the UK, and I think that he accepts that the Bill goes a long way to doing that. We are trying to move away from the existing adversarial culture to a culture in which people work together and understand the requirements of business. The trade unions play an increasingly large part in that process, which is evidenced by the number of FTSE 100 companies that are union organised, so the unions are generally a force for good.
	On union recognition procedure, we would initially like to see more voluntary agreements. So far, there have been more than 1,000 voluntary agreements, and it is a step in the right direction when employers and employees come together and go down the voluntary route. The statutory procedure covers situations in which that cannot happen, and is included as a minimum standard. It is reasonable to expect and accept that the Government's role should be to facilitate the smooth running of the statutory procedure, which is why I have said throughout that we must examine intimidation.
	In response to my opening remarks, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said that the Government new clauses are pretty reasonable, but then he told us why they are unreasonable, and he did not make the case.

Stephen O'Brien: Scrutiny.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It seems to me that the spirit of scrutiny in Committee is different from the spirit of scrutiny on the Floor of the House perhaps that is because of this environment.

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) was not on the Committee.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman says that his hon. Friend was not there. I would expect the Front Bench spokesperson to read about how the Committee developed and learn from interventions on both sides of the House about where we are going with employment relations and the new attitude that we are trying to achieve. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Gordon, the key purpose is to stop intimidation, whether on the union side or the employer side.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked whether an employer can be penalised if he takes action against a worker for attending a meeting organised by the union at a time when he should be working. When the union and the employer make an access agreement, they will set out how many meetings should take place, when and where they should take place, how long they will last and which workers are entitled to attend which meetings. The new clause makes it clear that an employer can be penalised only if he takes action against a worker for attending a meeting that that worker was entitled to attend. The CAC would have a role in stopping frivolous cases and would consider the circumstances and the reasonableness of the situation, but initially the union and the employer would set out what meetings should take place.
	I was asked why an employer should not be allowed to attend a meeting with his staff held on his premises during working hours, because surely he has such a right. In many cases, unions are happy for employers to attend access meetings. Indeed, the code of practice on access makes it clear that, where possible, joint meetings can be beneficial. However, we must accept that in some cases workers will not want their employer to know that they support a union's campaign. They might not even want their employer to know that they are going along to a meeting to find out about recognition. They may fear that their employer will brand them as disloyal if they do so, and may be afraid to ask the questions that they really want answered if the employer is there. Unfortunately, the evidence is that on occasion anti-union employers victimise union members and supporters. That is why it is important that meetings between the union and the workers in the bargaining unit should be private.

David Hamilton: Within that, there is a recognition that not employers, but management, attend union meetings along with workers because they are part of the structure. It is up to the local branch of the union to determine what is right. There are many thousands of cases where senior management attend meetings with the workers because they are part of that union.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In fact, I would advocate that, because that is where the case can be put freely as to the union's campaigning activities and the employer's view of those activities. It is likely that that relationship exists in most go-ahead companies that look to the future. Another crucial part of the Bill is the information and consultation directive, which opens up the opportunities for dialogue to take place and moves away from the adversarial situation.
	The hon. Member for Gordon suggested that surely it is okay for the employer to ask how a meeting went. Clearly it is, if his question is reasonable. If he says, "Did the meeting go well?", that is acceptable and there is no problem, but he may go further to ask for the names of the workers who were there and details of how the meeting went. The CAC would question the motivation behind that.
	I was asked to explain the definition of "undue influence." Undue influence is a concept borrowed from the Representation of the People Act 1983. It includes: the use of, or threat to use, force, violence or restraint; the infliction of, or threat to inflict, injury, damage, harm or loss; and the impediment of the free exercise of the vote by fraudulent device or contrivance. The term is designed to pick up a range of behaviours from violence and threats of violence to libellous statements. Whether a particular action constitutes undue influence will depend a great deal on the circumstances and manner in which it was taken and whether it was demonstrably intended to influence the ballot. The Government intend to bring forward a code of practice following consultation with interested parties to provide clear guidance to all the parties involved.
	We have been very conscious of the need to ensure that the jurisdictions of the CAC and the employment tribunal should remain separate. That is why we took care to ensure that the question that each court will have to consider is different. If a worker suffers detriment or dismissal for supporting or opposing recognition, he or she may seek individual redress at the employment tribunal. The union may seek collective redress from the CAC if that dismissal or detriment changed or was likely to change voting behaviours.
	We intend to consult in detail on sanctions. Consultation is the whole basis of this and previous Bills. We have a good reputation with employers and trade unions in terms of taking that approach. I accept that there is a fear that we have not gone through the full process, but we have tried to do so on all these matters. We propose adopting a structure that is very similar to that already in place for breaches of a union's access duties. Where the CAC finds that a complaint is well-founded, it will be able to issue an order against the guilty party that they should desist from the unfair practice in question and take steps to remedy the harm done. For example, they may be ordered to repudiate an earlier statement or to restore to a worker any loss incurred through a detriment. Once the CAC has issued a remedial order, if that party subsequently breaches the remedial order or commits another unfair practice, the CAC can issue a second sanction. If the employer is at fault, that second sanction, as for access, will be that the union is automatically recognised. If the union is at fault, the sanction will be that the union's application fails that is the same sort of sanction that applies for other detriments. I believe that we are acting in a proper and responsible manner in relation to those few times when intimidation takes place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) asked us to go further of course, we keep such matters under review but generally welcomed our proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South asked for the evidence on either side, and I hope that I explained what is being achieved.
	The performance of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) is ever consistent in that in most cases, unfortunately, he sees only one side of the argument. New clause 2 is not balanced it applies only to the employer side, and even it is weak in terms of the definition of available sanctions.
	Hon. Members will be aware that the Joint Committee scrutinises statutory instruments. I will try to give as much notice as possible in that respect, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that hon. Members accept my assurances that when they are available they will have the opportunity to look at them.
	This has been a good debate. Intimidation is wrong in whatever form it appears. The new clauses represent a balanced set of measures that meet the requirement of telling employers or unions who want to use underhand tactics that that is inappropriate. I commend the new clauses to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Unfair Practices in Relation to Recognition Ballots

After paragraph 27 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act insert
	"27A (1) Each of the parties informed by the CAC under paragraph 25(9) must refrain from using any unfair practice.
	(2) A party uses an unfair practice if, with a view to influencing the result of the ballot, the party
	(a) offers anything to a worker entitled to vote in the ballot in return for the worker's agreement to vote in a particular way or to abstain from voting,
	(b) coerces or attempts to coerce a worker entitled to vote in the ballot to disclose
	(i) whether he intends to vote or to abstain from voting in the ballot, or
	(ii) how he intends to vote, or how he has voted, in the ballot,
	(c) dismisses or threatens to dismiss a worker,
	(d) takes or threatens to take disciplinary action against a worker,
	(e) subjects or threatens to subject a worker to any other detriment, or
	(f) uses or attempts to use undue influence on a worker entitled to vote in the ballot.
	(3) The duty imposed by this paragraph does not confer any rights on a worker; but that does not affect any other right which a worker may have.
	(4) Each of the following powers shall be taken to include power to issue Codes of Practice about unfair practices for the purposes of this paragraph
	(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);
	(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a).
	27B (1) A party may complain to the CAC that another party has failed to comply with paragraph 27A.
	(2) A complaint under sub-paragraph (1) must be made on or before the first working day after
	(a) the date of the ballot, or
	(b) if the ballot is held on more than one day, the last date on which votes can be cast in the ballot.
	(3) Within the decision period the CAC must decide whether the complaint is well-founded.
	(4) A complaint is well-founded if
	(a) the CAC finds that the party complained against used an unfair practice, and
	(b) the CAC is satisfied that the use of that practice changed or was likely to change, in the case of a worker entitled to vote in the ballot
	(i) his intention to vote or to abstain from voting,
	(ii) his intention to vote in a particular way, or
	(iii) how he voted.
	(5) The decision period is
	(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day after that on which the complaint under sub-paragraph (1) was received by the CAC, or
	(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by a notice containing reasons for the extension.
	(6) If, at the beginning of the decision period, the ballot has not begun, the CAC may by notice to the parties and the qualified independent person postpone the date on which it is to begin until a date which falls after the end of the decision period.
	27C (1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision about the consequences of a decision that a complaint under paragraph 27B is well-founded.
	(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular
	(a) amend this Schedule;
	(b) apply any provision of this Schedule with such modifications as may be specified in the order;
	(c) confer functions on the CAC;
	(d) make provision about the arrangement and conduct of further ballots;
	(e) include supplementary or incidental provisions;
	(f) make different provision for different cases or circumstances.
	(3) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument.
	(4) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".'. [Mr. Sutcliffe.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Unfair Practices in Relation to Derecognition Ballots

After paragraph 119 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act insert
	"119A (1) Each of the parties informed by the CAC under paragraph 117(11) must refrain from using any unfair practice.
	(2) A party uses an unfair practice if, with a view to influencing the result of the ballot, the party
	(a) offers anything to a worker entitled to vote in the ballot in return for the worker's agreement to vote in a particular way or to abstain from voting,
	(b) coerces or attempts to coerce a worker entitled to vote in the ballot to disclose
	(i) whether he intends to vote or to abstain from voting in the ballot, or
	(ii) how he intends to vote, or how he has voted, in the ballot,
	(c) dismisses or threatens to dismiss a worker,
	(d) takes or threatens to take disciplinary action against a worker,
	(e) subjects or threatens to subject a worker to any other detriment, or
	(f) uses or attempts to use undue influence on a worker entitled to vote in the ballot.
	(3) The duty imposed by this paragraph does not confer any rights on a worker; but that does not affect any other right which a worker may have.
	(4) Each of the following powers shall be taken to include power to issue Codes of Practice about unfair practices for the purposes of this paragraph
	(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);
	(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a).
	119B (1) A party may complain to the CAC that another party has failed to comply with paragraph 119A.
	(2) A complaint under sub-paragraph (1) must be made on or before the first working day after
	(a) the date of the ballot, or
	(b) if the ballot is held on more than one day, the last date on which votes can be cast in the ballot.
	(3) Within the decision period the CAC must decide whether the complaint is well-founded.
	(4) A complaint is well-founded if
	(a) the CAC finds that the party complained against used an unfair practice, and
	(b) the CAC is satisfied that the use of that practice changed or was likely to change, in the case of a worker entitled to vote in the ballot
	(i) his intention to vote or to abstain from voting,
	(ii) his intention to vote in a particular way, or
	(iii) how he voted.
	(5) The decision period is
	(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day after that on which the complaint under sub-paragraph (1) was received by the CAC, or
	(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by a notice containing reasons for the extension.
	(6) If, at the beginning of the decision period, the ballot has not begun, the CAC may by notice to the parties and the qualified independent person postpone the date on which it is to begin until a date which falls after the end of the decision period.
	119C (1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision about the consequences of a decision that a complaint under paragraph 119B is well-founded.
	(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular
	(a) amend this Schedule;
	(b) apply any provision of this Schedule with such modifications as may be specified in the order;
	(c) confer functions on the CAC;
	(d) make provision about the arrangement and conduct of further ballots;
	(e) include supplementary or incidental provisions;
	(f) make different provision for different cases or circumstances.
	(3) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument.
	(4) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".'. [Mr. Sutcliffe.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Unfair Practices: Power to Make Provision About Periods Before Notice of Ballot

After paragraph 166A of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act (which is inserted by section 12) insert
	"166B (1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, during any period beginning and ending with the occurrence of specified events, employers and unions to which the order applies are prohibited from using such practices as are specified as unfair practices in relation to an application under this Schedule of a specified description.
	(2) An order under this paragraph may make provision about the consequences of a contravention of any prohibition imposed by the order (including provision modifying the effect of any provision of this Schedule in the event of such a contravention).
	(3) An order under this paragraph may confer functions on the CAC.
	(4) An order under this paragraph may contain provision extending for the purposes of the order either or both of the following powers to issue Codes of Practice
	(a) the power of ACAS under section 199(1);
	(b) the power of the Secretary of State under section 203(1)(a).
	(5) An order under this paragraph may
	(a) include supplementary or incidental provisions (including provision amending this Schedule), and
	(b) make different provision for different cases or circumstances.
	(6) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument.
	(7) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(8) In this paragraph "specified" means specified in an order under this paragraph.".'. [Mr. Sutcliffe.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Dignity at Work

(1) Every employee shall have the right to dignity at work, and if the terms of the contract under which a person is employed do not include that right they shall be deemed to include it.
	(2) An employer commits a breach of the right to dignity at work of an employee if, during his employment with the employer, that employee suffers harassment or bullying or any act, omission or conduct which causes him to be alarmed or distressed, including (but not limited to) any of the following
	(a) behaviour on more than one occasion which is offensive, abusive, malicious, insulting or intimidating;
	(b) unjustified criticism on more than one occasion;
	(c) punishment imposed without reasonable justification;
	(d) changes in the duties or responsibilities of the employee to the employee's detriment without reasonable justification.
	(3) Every employer shall provide a written Dignity at Work Policy outlining each employee's right to dignity at work, which must include the following
	(a) an explanation of the statutory right of all employees to dignity at work and a statement that breaches of that right will not be tolerated;
	(b) examples of the types of behaviour which do not conform with the right to dignity at work and of conduct which may lead to disciplinary action;
	(c) a clear statement of the procedure for bringing complaints and the manner in which they will be dealt with, which must include a commitment that complaints of a breach of the right to dignity at work will be taken seriously, investigated objectively and dealt with in confidence and must allow the complainant to be represented by a representative of his choice at all stages;
	(d) designation of a competent person to whom complaints should be made and who shall fulfil the functions allotted to the competent person by this Act;
	(e) a clear statement of the disciplinary procedure to be followed against employees who infringe the Policy, which statement shall comply with the provisions of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary Practice and Procedures in Employment (1977);
	(f) details (including names and contact telephone numbers) of designated persons available to counsel, assist and advise individuals bringing complaints or who are the subject of complaints;
	(g) arrangements for training in the Policy all those occupying any position of managerial authority, and all employees of the Policy;
	(h) annual monitoring of the operation of the Policy, to be reported to senior management, and to include a summary of all complaints made under the Policy (with names of complaints kept confidential unless the complainant agrees otherwise); and
	(i) arrangements for consultation with trade union and safety representatives on the operation of the Policy, its implementation and any revision of the Policy in the light of its operation in practice.'. [Valerie Davey.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Valerie Davey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The need for the Government to be more proactive in promoting and ensuring dignity at work for all employees at every level has been reiterated from the Back Benches of this Chamber and the House of Lords since at least 1996. I am pleased to have the opportunity briefly to consider new clause 1 and raise again the serious anxiety about the widespread nature of bullying in the workplace.
	All Members of Parliament must know through their surgeries of cases of constituents experiencing bullying at work and being unable to voice that experience and seek a resolution. When we first heard about those often desperate cases, most of us were unaware of the scale of the problem. In November 2001, the Manchester school of management and the university of Manchester institute of science and technology published the report entitled, "Destructive Conflict and Bullying at Work". Five thousand people in 70 workplaces responded to the survey, which showed that one in 10 people 10 per cent. had experienced bullying in the previous six months and that one in four 25 per cent. had experienced bullying in the previous five years.
	Subsequent evidence from trade unions confirmed that, despite years of campaigning against bullying, it remains a persistent and extensive problem. I want to identify and thank especially Amicus-MSF and Chris Ball, the national secretary, for persistently bringing the matter back to public attention, for producing good material for the use of members and officers and for drafting policies for employers and organisations. That experience led to the union concluding:
	"The size of the problem cannot be overstated."
	Amicus, and the Andrea Adams Trust, which is the only charity that responds to the counselling needs of those who have been bullied, encouraged the all-party dignity at work group to seek statutory action. I want to put on record my appreciation of the work of both organisations.
	Further, more recent evidence has come in response to the new clause from the Royal College of Nursing, which offers its support and reports that its "Working well" survey showed that, in 2002, one in six nurses had been bullied in the workplace. It wants
	"additional protection for employees and redress for those who suffer bullying in the workplace."
	Until last week, the Government's response on each occasion had been concerned words but limited action.
	In response, dare I say it, to the new clause, which I tabled only a fortnight ago, the reaction was almost instantaneous and remarkably proactive. I offer my sincere congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her announcement last week that, together with Amicus, the Government will launch the world's largest project to stamp out bullying and discrimination at work.
	Alongside the need to support individuals, the Government have recognised that some 5 million people are affected, that 13.5 million working days are lost through stress and that the cost to the economy is £4 billion every year. The project has been launched to provide supportive advice and training to organisations that are trying to tackle bullying, train employees as counsellors, devise and promote a voluntary charter on dignity at work, promote examples of excellent employers in the United Kingdom and produce a benchmark that enables organisations to measure their success in achieving dignity at work and a "ban bullying" pack. The Government are working initially with Amicus and 10 leading employers, including British Aerospace, Royal Mail, Legal and General and British Telecommunications.
	Although I understand that another 180 employers will join the project in the autumn, it is voluntary. However, it is far-reaching and extensive. The partnership with Amicus means that great experience will be brought to it, and that will be invaluable.
	I remind the Government that other European countries have followed the legislative route and I hope that the project will be compared with the work in other countries. However, in the light of what the Government have produced and are doing, I would seek to withdraw the new clause on the understanding and with an assurance from the Minister that the project will be monitored and that, should good practice not prove as infectious as we all hope, the Government will reconsider the possibility of legislation and revisit the new clause or a similar provision later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot move and withdraw the clause in the same speech. I have to take it that she is moving the clause in the speech. We can then put the Question, on which the Minister and perhaps other hon. Members may wish to comment. Has the hon. Lady concluded her speech?

Valerie Davey: May I simply say that I am minded to withdraw the new clause and thank you for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Eleanor Laing: It may not have been in order for the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) to mention at this stage her intention to withdraw the new clause, but since she has expressed it, I welcome it. Although I entirely agree with her sentiments and intentions, I disagree with the idea that passing further legislation will achieve them. The new clause is too prescriptive. Clearly, I do not have to make that argument because she acknowledges its validity.
	New clause 1 would place an enormous burden on employers and employees to understand what constitutes a dignity at work policy and the way in which it would be enforced. That applies especially to a small workplace in a small or medium-sized firm that does not employ many human resources people. It cannot be good for industry to employ more people to deal with further regulations than it does to manufacture goods and services. Business and industry should be about the latter, not keeping to the letter of complicated laws.
	I commend the hon. Lady for presenting the matter for discussion in the House and drawing it to the Minister's attention. The thrust of her comments is right. She has outlined the problem well but, unfortunately, new clause 1 is not the solution would that it were. If the solution to the enormous problem that she described was passing such a law, we would all be pleased. Employers and employees alike would be pleased if we could eradicate the dreadful problem of bullying by merely writing something in statute.
	Most employers want to be good employers and most employees want to be good employees because it is far preferable if everybody gets on well. Employers want to encourage their employees by being good employers because that is how to get the best out of their work force. It is as simple as that.
	The hon. Lady was right to talk about dignity. How terribly undignified, therefore, that many people heard last week on radio and television that they would be made redundant. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
	"I am not prepared to have our workers hear on the radio that they will lose their jobs or find that they have already lost their jobs through a text message." [Official Report, 14 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 821.]
	So it is not all right for workers to suffer the indignity of hearing about the loss of their job by text message or on the radio or television, but it is all right if they hear it in the Budget. That is hardly a dignified way for the Government to treat large parts of their work force. If the Government backed their words with actions, many of the problems that we have been discussing throughout the passage of the Bill could be eradicated immediately.
	It would be bad jurisprudence to pass new clause 1 into law, as it would be difficult to enforce. It is bad in principle to make laws that cannot be enforced and would be unclear. However, I join the hon. Lady in asking the Government to take seriously the problem that she outlined, which we would all like solved.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) for tabling the new clause and for commending the Government's decisions over the last couple of weeks to work with the trade union Amicus on bullying. I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) had to say, but if she is so keen on information and consultation, she will have explain to employees why her party will vote against the principles and proposals surrounding those issues later this evening. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks, and I ask her to withdraw her new clause.

Valerie Davey: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Intimidation

After paragraph 51 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act insert
	"Intimidation
	51A If during the union recognition procedure a union uses undue force or intimidating measures to get recognition then the CAC shall have the right to investigate this at the request of the employer or any worker and if such measures are found to have been used the CAC shall terminate the recognition procedure immediately.".'.[Mr. Bellingham.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: [Mr. Bellingham.]
	The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Appeals

After paragraph 171 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act insert
	"Appeals
	171A Any of a union or a company or a relevant worker may appeal against any decision of the CAC to the High Court.".'.[Mr. Bellingham.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The only route of appeal from the Central Arbitration Committee is judicial review. My argument is simple and I shall not go into great detail: surely there is a need to build a simple mechanism into statute to allow appeal to the High Court. After all, an appeal to the High Court can be made from the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
	One of my concerns is that the CAC is being asked to do more and more. With the inclusion in UK law of the EU information and consultation directive, there will be many more referrals to the CAC. I take the view, as do my hon. Friends, that more protection should be given to employers and, indeed, employees and trade unions alike in taking appeals to the High Court. I appreciate that things are improving, but I looked at some CAC cases from the past few years and I have to say that often the CAC does not spell out its decisions clearly or comprehensively.
	On a number of occasions, all that the CAC has said is:
	"In our industrial relations experience, this is our decision".
	If we are not to have a right of appeal to the High Court, the Minister should certainly ask the CAC to be much clearer and to spell out in much more detail the background to and reasoning behind its decisions. I ask him to consider the new clause carefully.

Jonathan Djanogly: I support the new clause, which would give unions as well as all companies and all workers for that matter the right to take an appeal against a CAC decision to the High Court. The workings of statutory recognition are complex and the procedures, as we have deduced over the past two months, can be complicated.
	In deciding between the parties, the CAC sometimes has to make value judgments. I accept that the CAC is a worthy body and that it normally gets it right, but in those less frequent examples where one side is not happy with the decision presumably in an industrial conflict there should be a right of appeal.
	In Committee, the Minister said that the CAC annual report notes that it has a satisfaction rating of 80 per cent. That is borne out in the report, which also notes that the response rate to the survey was only 40 per cent. In considering the judicial powers of the CAC, the people consulted might not want to go too public on their attitudes towards it, because it could judge them. Does the Minister know whether the CAC or an independent third party collected that data? That would be relevant to our consideration of whether an appeal would be fair. From what my hon. Friend has said, and from the statistics as given, such an appeal would be right.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful for the hon. Gentlemen's contributions to the debate.
	As the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) explained, the new clause concerns whether there should be a mechanism for appeals against decisions of the Central Arbitration Committee in addition to the possibility of seeking a judicial review on any such decision. While in many areas of law it is useful to have a right of appeal to a higher authority when one party feels aggrieved about a court's decision, the Government think that it would be inappropriate in this case, in which there are statutory recognition procedures. The CAC must make a large number of judgments in the course of its consideration of an application. An additional right of appeal against individual decisions of the CAC would introduce serious delays into the process, particularly if it had to be halted until the appeal was heard. It would encourage legalism and the type of legal wrangling that undermined recognition procedures in the 1970s. Such delays are not neutral and in most cases favour the employer.
	Most importantly, the CAC is a specialist body operating in a specialist area, as hon. Members have accepted. Its decisions often turn on the application of its members' industrial relations expertise and experience. No appeal court—including the High Court—could match that. That view was judicially endorsed in both the High Court and Court of Appeal in the Kwik-Fit judicial review. In the High Court, Mr. Justice Elias stated that
	"courts do not have the relevant expertise, nor is it desirable that these procedures should become a happy hunting ground for lawyers."
	In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Buxton agreed with this statement and added that
	"the CAC was intended by Parliament to be a decision making body in a specialist area that is not suitable for the intervention of the courts."
	Of course, the CAC's decisions can be challenged through judicial review. There have been only six applications for judicial review, four of which proceeded to a full review. In only two of those cases was the CAC found to have acted improperly in any way. The outcome of those few cases demonstrates that the CAC has used sound judgment in interpreting the extent and nature of its powers.
	In addition, the amendment is defective in that it refers to the "company'" not the "employer". It thereby ensures that employers that are not companies have no right of appeal. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) asked about the response rate to the survey on the CAC. Unless I receive some in-flight information, I cannot give him that answer now, but I will write to him in due course [Interruption.] I think that the CAC has its own information, but I will clarify that, as he also asked that question in Committee.
	The new clause would damage the smooth functioning of the recognition procedure for little discernible benefit, and is also defective. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's concerns and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful for the Minister for those remarks. In his customary charming way, he has explained why he does not like the amendment and feels that it is technically undesirable. I forgot to declare my interest as a barrister he mentioned a happy hunting ground for lawyers, and I take on board his point. I reject his criticism of the High Court, which is made up of a large number of judges with huge expertise. In the light of what the Minister said, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Right to Strike

For subsection (2) of section 221 of the 1992 Act (restrictions on grant of injunctions and interdicts) substitute
	"(2) No injunction or interdict shall be granted to restrain exercise of the right to strike by a trade union or any workers.".'. [John McDonnell.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

John McDonnell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 11 Dismissal in connection with participation in official industrial action 
	(1) Section 238A of the 1992 Act (dismissal in connection with participation in official industrial action) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) for "employee" substitute "worker".
	(3) For subsections (2) to (8) substitute
	"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a worker takes protected industrial action if he reasonably believes he is so doing.
	(3) The obligations on the worker to work and on the employer to give consideration therefore under the contract under which a worker works shall be suspended by operation of law for that period during which the worker takes protected industrial action and shall in no circumstances be or be regarded as broken by reason of his taking protected industrial action.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall make regulations which shall apply to deal with the consequences of suspension of contracts in accordance with subsection (3) so as to protect the various interests of workers and employers and in particular to ensure the preservation of the contract and the restoration of the obligations thereunder when the protected industrial action concludes.
	(5) Loss of pay during industrial action (whether protected or not) shall never be greater than the sum which the worker would have earned had he not taken the industrial action.".'.
	New clause 12 Right to strike (No.2) 
	(1) The 1992 Act is amended as follows.
	(2) Before section 219 (but after the cross-heading immediately preceding that section) insert
	"218A Right to strike
	(1) A trade union has the right, and it shall be lawful, to call for or to support or encourage workers to take industrial action as a means of resolving or seeking to resolve any dispute or as a means of achieving or seeking to achieve any object which relates to any workers' interests at work including (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) economic and social matters which affect any workers or the trade union or on which the trade union has a policy.
	(2) Every worker has the right, and it shall be lawful, to take industrial action as a means of resolving or seeking to resolve any dispute or as a means of achieving or seeking to achieve any object which relates to any workers' interests at work including (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) economic and social matters which affect any workers or the trade union or on which the trade union has a policy.
	(3) In this Act industrial action' shall include the act of peacefully assembling and of picketing or refusing to cross a picket.".
	(3) Omit sections 219, 220, 222 to 235A and 240 to 246.'.
	New clause 13 Ballots on industrial action 
	(1) The 1992 Act is amended as follows.
	(2) Before section 226 (but after the cross-heading immediately preceding that section) insert
	"225A Ballots on industrial action
	(1) The rules referred to in section 3(2)(a) shall contain provisions requiring a ballot to be held (save in exceptional or emergency situations) of members which the trade union reasonably identifies as those likely to be invited by it to take industrial action and those rules shall be approved by the Certification Officer as reasonable, and such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
	(2) No person or body other than a member of the union concerned may bring legal action which relies to any degree on an allegation that the balloting obligations of the union have not been met.".
	(3) Omit sections 226 to 234A.'.
	New clause 17 Industrial action: deduction from wages 
	When a worker has taken part in official industrial action, the employer may not make a deduction from the worker's wages in respect of that action which exceeds the amount which the worker would have earned if he had not taken part in that action.'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 18, line 38, leave out Clauses 21 to 23.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 48, line 47 [Schedule 2], leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 49 and insert
	Sections 219 and 220.Sections 222 to 235A.Sections 240 to 246.'.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 48, line 47 [Schedule 2], leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 49 and insert
	Sections 226 to 234A.'.

John McDonnell: I realise that we have less than an hour left in this debate, so I shall try to be as brief as possible, as I know that Members want to reach amendment No. 1, which is the last on the selection list.
	This group represents an attempt to place in British law the right to strike. New clause 11 looks at the right to strike, new clause 12 is on secondary action and picketing, new clause 13 is on balloting, new clause 17 reiterates new clause 11 on deduction from wages, and new clause 9 relates to issues about injunctions.
	The basis of the discussion leads on from the Second Reading debate, to which many Members contributed. As Members are aware, the right to strike does not exist in British law. The only protections that strikers have are as a result of breaches of individual contracts of employment by industrial action, which is based on a legal immunity built up over time. That is in complete contradiction to the international agreements signed by successive Governments the International Labour Organisation conventions, the Council of Europe social charter, and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
	This is an attempt to address in some way the extension of the immunities allowed to people who take industrial action. It does not strike at the heart of the Government's failure to abide by international conventions, which would require the right to strike to be legislated for in this country. In most European countries, lawful strike does not break the contract of employment but merely suspends it, so it is unlawful to sack a worker on lawful strike, and the courts will prevent it. Were that the law here, there would be no need for the complex unfair dismissal rules to protect strikers that we have debated at length over the last 15 to 20 years. New clause 11 attempts to arrive at a clarification of the right to strike.
	In the last debate in 1999, there was an attempt to extend immunities with the eight-week rule. The Friction Dynamics dispute demonstrated that that protection was inadequate. This Bill yet again applies further conditions to ameliorate the eight-week rule and enhance the protections, but in my view will also prove inadequate. In the Friction Dynamics case, it was demonstrated that many of the protections outlined in this Bill were already taken into account by the appeal tribunal. What we really need is an amendment to delete section 238A and provide that, when a worker is engaged in industrial action called by a trade union lawfully, of course pursuant to section 219, such industrial action shall not in any circumstances be held to constitute a breach of the contract of employment, but instead shall suspend the obligations under the contract of both the employee and the employer during the currency of the industrial action.
	Since the industrial action breaches the contract of employment, the worker is not entitled to be paid for time while taking industrial action. That would obviously equally apply if the contract were suspended during the action. Nowadays, however, employers often deduct wages on an unfair daily basis when the sum deducted is more than the worker would have earned had she or he performed all her or his duties that day. The new clause provides for a worker taking industrial action not to be penalised by losing more than the sum that would have been earned had he or she not taken such action. That, indeed, is the purport of new clauses 11 and 17.
	At present, the immunity allowed to a worker taking strike action protects that worker from specific torts in common law. One protection that it does not give is the ability to take action very specifically unrelated to the worker's direct employment. Industrial action is protected against that limited range of torts only if it is in contemplation of furtherance of a dispute that is wholly or mainly related to the terms and conditions of employment, or to other matters specified in the legislation such as job losses, disciplinary issues and trade union recognition or derecognition. If, according to a court, the union's predominant motive falls outside such statutory trade dispute issues, the immunity will be lost.
	New clause 12 would extend the immunities. Sections 219 and 244 of the 1992 Act would be deleted, and it would be provided that
	"A trade union has the right, and it shall be lawful, to call for or to encourage workers to take industrial action as a means of resolving any dispute . . . to any workers' interests at work including . . . economic and social matters which affect the worker or the trade union or on which the trade union has a policy."
	In other words, when a trade union was pursuing a particular policy not specifically related to the company involved but more widely related to the economic and social conditions in an area, such action would be lawful.
	Under current UK law, a trade dispute must be between employees and their own employer. If the relevant dispute is between another employer and his employees, it is unlawful for a union to call for sympathetic or so-called secondary action. My proposals support the ILO and the Council of Europe, which have condemned that blanket ban. The new clause would enable secondary action to take place, and workers taking such action would be protected from unfair dismissal.
	The Government have written into British law a guaranteed ability to assemble peacefully, under the Human Rights Act 1998. New clause 12 would enable pickets to assemble peacefully to attempt to persuade people not to cross a picket line. The Bill does not deal with that problem. Section 222 of the 1992 Act should be amended to give workers the right to assemble peacefully under the Human Rights Act, and to picket any place of work.
	New clause 13 deals with ballots. Even when industrial action falls within the narrow statutory definition of a trade dispute, a trade union will lose immunity if it fails to comply with the highly complex procedures requiring a fully postal strike ballot and so forth, which we have discussed in the context of a series of employment and trade union-related measures over the last six years. Pre-ballot and pre-strike notices in due form must be sent to the employer in a dispute, in accordance with the strict timetable set out. The employer will therefore be able to injunct the union if the procedures are not adhered to.
	The Bill goes some way towards overcoming a number of problems of detail relating to balloting procedures, but it should be for workers and their unions to decide how best to ascertain collective views. Workplace ballots might be more suitable in some circumstances, but in emergencies a ballot might have to come after action had taken place. That is demonstrated by industrial action in my constituency at British Airways and elsewhere. My new clauses would place the onus on the certification officer to clarify and verify the procedures set out in the union's rules to ensure that they allowed for democratic participation by members in decisions on industrial action, but would not allow employers themselves to intervene to injunct individual unions or prevent action. It would be up to individual trade unionists to injunct or take up the issue with their unions.
	A range of restrictions already exist to impede fair deliberation about industrial action. A further problem in current industrial action law is the use of interlocutory injunctions. That emergency procedure does not require the claimant to prove the alleged facts either beyond all reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities. It is sufficient for the employer to assert facts that, as long as they appear credible, will be accepted by the court, notwithstanding that the union has evidence to the contrary. The employer need not even demonstrate that its case is stronger than the union's; it is enough to show a serious issue to be tried. If credible facts are asserted and an arguable case under law is demonstrated, the court will more or less automatically grant an injunction if the balance of convenience favours it. In practice, the court will almost invariably grant the injunction to stop the industrial action, unless the union shows that the employer's legal argument is unsustainable, because the balance of convenience invariably tilts in the employer's favour.
	The Council of Europe's economic and social rights committee has condemned that lack of balance between employer and trade union, as has the International Labour Organisation's committee of experts. The Bill does not deal with that matter, but new clause 9 would ensure that
	"No injunction or interdict shall be granted to restrain exercise of the right to strike by a trade union or any workers"
	unless there is a full trial.
	Much has been said about the need for balance between employer and worker. These new clauses and amendments would endorse the legal right to strike, which the Government have accepted in one international treaty after another, and balance the legal strengths of employer and worker in the discussions and deliberations leading up to industrial action.

Jonathan Djanogly: Injunctions have probably saved an enormous amount of time and cost for all parties concerned. New clause 9 would allow a strike to go ahead and its rights and wrongs to be considered later. That would be a recipe for mayhem, albeit legal mayhem, and would involve enormous costs probably the bankrupting of unions with very little being achieved.
	I take it that, however long a strike lasted, workers' rights would be fully protected, presumably even if the company went into insolvency as a result. New clauses 12 and 13 would give a right to strike on the broadest possible terms. I think that they technically maintain the difference between official and unofficial action, but the concepts are merged to such an extent that there is little difference between them. Given that the ballot could be undertaken by the union with no one except its own members able to complain to the courts about the ballot process, I do not see how it would be meaningful at all.
	Having briefly addressed the new clauses, I can safely say that I am not in favour of any of them.

Hywel Williams: I rise to speak briefly about the experience of my constituents involved in the Friction Dynamics strike, to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred earlier. I shall not go into the details of the strike, but it pointed up the weaknesses of current legislation, especially the eight-week rule. At an earlier stage, I welcomed clause 21 as a partial answer, and the extension period in relation to lockouts is certainly welcome. However, I suspect that if clause 21 is passed, bad employers will continue in their intransigence up to and beyond a period of 16 weeks. If that had happened in the case in my constituency, I presume that my constituents would still be picketing today, three years after the start of their strike.
	I tend to think that the abolition of the eight-week rule would encourage bad employers to come to the table, which is what good employers do anyway. No commercial undertaking wants to extend a strike unless it has a particular motivation for doing so, as we saw in the case of Friction Dynamics. As I said, where there is no lockout, the eight-week rule will still apply. Had Friction Dynamics' management played their cards rather more carefully, the strike would have continued and they would not have been found guilty by an industrial tribunal. So the situation would have been the same as before the various discussions that took place about the Friction Dynamics strike. Plaid Cymru's position remains the same: if a strike is lawful for eight weeks, we see no reason why the protection should not be applied during the ninth and further weeks, and we regard the Employment Relations Act 1999 as a compromise that needs to be looked at again.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for the brevity with which he spoke to the new clauses and amendments, notwithstanding the seriousness of the issues that he raised. I am grateful to him for recognising that time is against us.
	This is a large group of new clauses and amendments that would radically change the law on industrial action, and the law on the consequences to the individual of taking industrial action. As my hon. Friends have said, the amendments would rewrite the law on industrial action. At a stroke, they would delete virtually all of part 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, substituting it with a few new sections that provide rights to trade unions and their members, but which systematically ignore the interests of employers and society at large.
	I do not intend to address the detail of the new clauses and amendments as we have little time. Instead, I shall address the more fundamental question that my hon. Friend is really asking me to address: whether a total reworking of these provisions is required. This body of law was mainly constructed during the 1980s, but its basic principles have been in place for a great deal longer. We know that unions resisted these changes when they were introduced. Some resented the interference in their internal affairs and the resulting democratisation of their decision-making procedures; many resented the more limited immunities against legal action that were introduced. However, unions have generally learned to live with the provisions. Their members have benefited from the greater control over their unions' decisions that the law has required. Employers have benefited from knowing that they cannot be dragged into industrial disputes that have nothing to do with them; and, more generally, society has benefited from less widespread and less damaging industrial action.
	The new clauses and amendments seek to take us back to the days of the 1960s and 1970s, when strikes significantly damaged our economy and the way in which we lived. They would reintroduce an entitlement to take secondary action, and would encourage wildcat strikes and other forms of damaging unofficial action. We want to frame the law in a way that deals with the realities of today's labour market, so it would be a profound mistake to turn the clock back. For these reasons, the Labour party made it plain in its 1997 manifesto that it would retain the key elements of the changes introduced in the 1980s. We will honour that commitment.
	Some might argue that the current law is imbalanced and puts unions in an impossibly weak position vis-á-vis the employer; I do not believe that that is the case. If that were so, employers would never deal with unions or choose to settle their disputes with them voluntarily. The evidence suggests that the strike weapon remains a potent one if union members really support it. Only in a minority of cases is a successful vote in favour of industrial action actually followed by a strike or another form of industrial action. Employers prefer to resolve their differences voluntarily, rather than incurring the cost and disruption of industrial action.
	My hon. Friend pointed to the International Labour Organisation's conventions and similar international instruments. It is fashionable in some quarters to interpret our international obligations in this area in the widest possible way. The truth is that the various treaties are drafted in very general terms and are capable of a wide range of interpretations. Those interpretations vary with each member state's industrial relations practices and traditions. Although it is true that some ILO advisory bodies have criticised our law on industrial action, we have always tried to answer those criticisms with reasoned arguments. We are convinced that we comply with our international obligations. The ILO gives due regard to our opinions, and understands that it is perfectly possible for different parties to interpret in good faith the implications of its conventions in different ways. As a result, the ILO's governing body has never formally reprimanded us for failing to comply with key conventions 87 and 98. Our standing with the ILO is as high as ever.
	New clauses 11 and 17 and amendment No. 10 deal with the consequences for individuals of taking industrial action. New clause 10 and amendment No. 10 would delete the provisions in the Bill that strengthen the protection for employees taking lawfully organised, official industrial action. In their place, new clause 11 introduces an entirely new protective regime.
	The basic aim of the new clause is to ensure that the protection is indefinite. We have already debated that issue many times, during our consideration of the Bill and during the passage of the Employment Relations Act 1999. Indeed, the issue was looked at in detail during our review of that Act. Our position is that we need to put a time limit on the period during which it is automatically unfair to dismiss someone taking industrial action. In industrial action law, we need to balance the legitimate interests of the employer and those of union members. That might not immediately appeal to my hon. Friend, but the Government want to create a fair regime for all interested parties and not just for one. Eight weeks is, in our judgment, a fair period. It covers the overwhelming majority of stoppages, 98 per cent. of which are dealt with within that period.
	The case of Friction Dynamics was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who supported us in Committee by recognising that we were tidying up the position on lock-out days and by accepting that we were asking both sides to take reasonable steps to resolve the dispute. We wanted to toughen up the position so that a Friction Dynamics situation could not happen again: both sides would have to prove that they tried reasonably to resolve the dispute. The action that took place has been condemned on both sides of the House.
	The Bill will strengthen the protections introduced in the 1999 Act in a targeted way that will resolve problems that have arisen in practice. The provisions may not meet everyone's aspirations in the union movement, but I believe that they are generally seen as an advance.
	New clause 17 places limits on the deductions from pay that employers may make when their employees take industrial action. That issue arose in the tertiary education sector, where the unions believe that employers made excessively large deductions. I think I am right in saying that the issue has not affected many other sectors, so it is not a matter that was highlighted in the representations that we received in preparing the Bill or during the review of the Employment Relations Act.
	I am not yet convinced that the issues need to be specifically addressed in industrial action law. Of course, there are already entitlements for workers to complain to employment tribunals about unauthorised deductions from pay. I hope that those existing protections would help the workers concerned in those cases, although I recognise that the breach of contract that occurs when workers take industrial action might complicate the position.
	The new clause contains a simple rule of thumb for deductions, but I am not sure that it provides the right answer. For example, there may be a legitimate case for employers to make some proportionate reduction to holiday pay or to make some adjustment to the calculation of an employee's length of service for pension purposes.
	In conclusion, I am not yet convinced that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with or, if there is, that new clause 17 provides the right solution. However, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend if he believes that it is a sufficiently serious issue.
	For reasons that I have explained, I do not wish to speak to the amendments in any further detail. Unfortunately, I find myself in agreement with many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), which is an unusual occurrence in this place. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause.

John McDonnell: With such a resounding welcome for the new clauses, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Collective Bargaining

(1) Omit paragraph 7 of Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act.
	(2) In paragraph 35(1) of that Schedule
	(a) after "agreement", insert "supported by a majority of workers within the relevant bargaining unit";
	(b) after "to", insert "and does";
	(c) after "bargaining", insert "in relation at least to pay, hours and holidays";
	(d) for "any" substitute "a substantial number of".'. [John McDonnell.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

John McDonnell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 8, in page 9, line 3, leave out Clause 8.
	No. 9, in page 49, line 10 [Schedule 2], after paragraphs', insert 7'.

John McDonnell: The new clause and associated amendments deal with a problem that has arisen in several disputes, which I would like briefly to outline. It first occurred in a dispute leading to the case of OILC v. Wood Group Engineering (North Sea) Ltd. in August 2003. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the core workers on the Brent oil platforms were OILC members and wanted the union to negotiate with their employer, Wood Group Engineering (North Sea) Ltd. on their behalf, the application was refused on the ground that the employer set the workers' terms and conditions by reference to a collective agreement between the Offshore Contractors Association and the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union and the GMB. That was held to debar the OILC from seeking recognition.
	The same problem occurred in the case of NUJ v. Mirror Group Newspapers plc, where a claim for recognition by the National Union of Journalists at the Racing Post was rejected by the Central Arbitration Committee. As in the previous case, the NUJ was about to finalise a deal with the employer, who decided instead to make a recognition deal with the British Association of Journalists a tiny union that at the time had not a single member at the Racing Post. It claimed to have one, whose name it had forgotten, at the time of the CAC hearing some months later, despite the employer circulating letters from the BAJ begging journalists to join and offering free subscriptions. At the time of the hearing, the BAJ had not carried out any collective bargaining on behalf of the workers in that firm, who shunned the BAJ. In the view of many, that was a breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights, which allows workers the right to be heard via their trade union. The new clause would ensure that a trade union that has a majority of a work force as members is not frustrated by an employer rushing into agreement with another organisation, which may have no membership or a minuscule membership in that firm, in advance of a CAC hearing and decision.
	As the law stands, it grants representation to the first comer, not to the most representative organisation. The amendment would put the Government's legislation in line with international law, but at the same time would accept the democratic wishes of the majority of the individuals working for a particular company who could demand to be represented by the union of their choice.

Jonathan Djanogly: On a technical point, I do not believe that there is a paragraph 7 or 35 to schedule A1 to the 1992 Act perhaps the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Employment Relations Act 1999; he may wish to clarify that point. At present, the recognition process applies only when a company has at least 21 workers and the new clause would open up union recognition in any company, however few workers it had. That would be an utter disaster for most small businesses, and for the competitive state of our economy.
	In any event, the statistics do not show union recognition in small companies to be a relevant consideration. The Minister told us in Committee that only 12 applications for statutory recognition came from companies with 21 to 30 employees less than 5 per cent. of the whole. Barely 10 per cent. of applications came from companies with between 31 and 50 employees. Companies do not appear interested in union recognition with that number of employees, and neither do the employees. Unions might not be interested in becoming involved at that level, probably because of the cost implications with so few members. For companies with fewer than 50 employees, none of the parties appears interested in recognition and to that extent, instead of the figure of 21 being struck out of the legislation, it should be raised to 50.

Bill Tynan: In a way, I support the proposition that has been put before us. Everyone is nasty about trade unions, and, at present, if companies have fewer than 21 employees they are excluded from trade union recognition. However, if Opposition Members recognised the value that trade unions can bring to a company, they would better understand industrial relations in this country. We start from different points of view. It is thought that unions are bad if they are involved in a small, family company, because that is not the way business should be done.
	In my former life as a trade union official, I often found that small companies recognised the worth of trade unions and negotiated with them, on not an official but an ad hoc basis. They had no objection to their employees being members of a trade union. If we exclude companies where there are fewer than 21 workers, we do a disservice to those who want union recognition. Union recognition is not bad it can be a good thing.

Jonathan Djanogly: No one is saying that people should not be members of a trade union that is their right; we are talking about recognition.

Bill Tynan: That is where we differ from Opposition Members. If 20 people in a company want to join a trade union and we are agreed that they have that right, I can see nothing wrong in the employer recognising those 20 people as a bargaining unit. Perhaps we should consider extending bargaining rights where there are fewer than 21 people in a business, although I realise that is not on the agenda tonight.
	There has been considerable discussion with the TUC and employers, but we need to send the message that in future we shall continue to look at the needs of workers in companies. There are some very bad small employers and a trade union is needed to defend their workers, who are treated very badly. I hope that Opposition Members do not condone bad employers who treat their workers badly.

David Drew: Rather than looking at the negatives, does my hon. Friend agree that we should look at the positives? For example, the Government's policies on stakeholder pensions could offer trade unions in small companies a valuable way to organise the work force to help employers understand why pensionability is vital for their workers.

Bill Tynan: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend.
	In Committee, we discussed a range of issues relating to trade union membership and how we would deal with them. We accepted that the Bill is a good one. Yes, there is room for amendment, and we should be signalling to the Minister that we may have to revisit some aspects in the future. I support the new clause, but I hope that it is withdrawn, because I understand the points that have been made. The Minister should take careful note of what has been proposed, however; perhaps we can move in that direction in the future.

Malcolm Bruce: When the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) introduced the new clause, he gave two examples. The second seemed to be a blatant illustration of the abuse that the provision would address, but I was rather puzzled by his first example, which sounded more like an inter-union dispute; indeed, the North sea problems rose from it. Operational working is such that contractors move on and off platforms. I am not arguing for or against the Wood offshore case, but the company presumably argued that it already had an established agreement with a trade union and was on the platform for the duration of a particular contract, but that the OILC was trying to get in on the act. That may not have been so, but that is how it sounded.

John McDonnell: No one was aware that the union agreement actually existed.

Malcolm Bruce: Presumably, the management were aware of it. The point is that there are particular problems for the organisation of North sea workers.
	The hon. Gentleman's second example was central, however. It is important that the Minister acknowledge the fact that there was a wholly self-interested attempt to destroy the legitimate aspiration of the work force to have the union they wanted. We must address the fact that managements could undermine not only the spirit of unionism but the fundamental principle that people have the right to belong to the union of their choice.

Gerry Sutcliffe: In view of the time, I shall race through my response, although that is not to underplay the seriousness of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has raised.
	Let me say to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) that the Government do not oppose recognition in companies with fewer than 21 workers. The argument is whether there should be statutory procedures in respect of such companies, and the evidence given to the hon. Gentleman exposes the position in that respect. However, I am sure that we shall return to the matter, in connection with rights to have a companion during dispute resolution procedures and so on.
	The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) spoke about offshore oil rigs and he is right to say that we should not be drawn into inter-union disputes. The case is or used to be governed by the TUC's Bridlington principles and is a matter for the TUC.
	As for the case involving the NUJ and Mirror Group Newspapers, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington will know that judicial review is likely, so I cannot say anything at this stage. However, I acknowledge the issues that have been raised.
	On collective agreements, we in the UK have a culture of voluntary procedures that does not exist elsewhere. There are matters to examine for example, sweetheart deals with employers but I hope that, having put the issues on the record, my hon. Friend will withdraw his new clause.

John McDonnell: I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14
	 — 
	Effect of Continuation of Contract Order on Transfer of Undertakings

(1) Section 130 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.26) (order for continuation of contract of employment) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1)(a) omit the word "and".
	(3) After subsection (1)(b) insert
	"and
	(c) for the purposes of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981,".'.[John McDonnell.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

John McDonnell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I seem to be trying to write the next piece of Government legislation on employment relations. Let me zip through this new clause as well.
	Several hon. Members have continuing problems with the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Section 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides for a special form of relief in the case of dismissal for trade union-related activities, and a person who claims unfair dismissal on those grounds may also make an application to the tribunal for interim relief. On an interim relief application, if the tribunal considers that the individual has better than even chances of success at the full hearing, the tribunal can make a continuation of contract order under section 129. That means that the contract is deemed to continue and the employer must continue to pay wages and other benefits due under the contract from the date of termination of the contract until the complaint of unfair dismissal is determined or settled.
	That is an important remedy for those who are dismissed on trade union-related grounds, especially as claims for unfair dismissal can take many months to be determined in tribunal. However, in the recent case of Dowling v. M E Ilic Haulage Ltd., the business was sold on after a continuation order was made. An application was made to join the transferee the business that had bought the business as a respondent, but the tribunal accepted the transferee's argument that the effect of a continuation of contract order was limited to the payment of pay and benefits, and continuity of employment; it did not mean that the contract continued, so the applicant's employment did not transfer on the business being sold and the transferee could not be joined as a respondent.
	The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld the decision and there is no application to appeal. Therefore, as the law stands, where a continuation of contract order has been made, the employee is extremely vulnerable if the business is sold on. We must bear in mind the fact that the transferor may have only small funds or even be insolvent, whereas the transferee will generally be viable and able to meet any awards or even to reinstate the employee if he succeeds in his claims. The new clause stipulates that the continuation of contract order has effect for the purposes of the TUPE regulations. That, in turn, means that the transferee can be joined as a respondent, and if the application is successful, the employee can be reinstated to or claim compensation from the transferee.
	Although it would make a minor amendment, the new clause could bring great relief and overcome a technical problem.

Gerry Sutcliffe: As my hon. Friend says, the new clause is designed to extend the effect of a tribunal order made under section 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The effect of an order under section 129 for the continuation of a contract of employment is dealt with in section 130, which provides that the contract should continue in force for the purposes of pay, pension rights, continuity of employment and other such matters. The new clause would add another category to those specified in section 130 by providing that a contract that a tribunal orders to continue in force would do so for the purposes of the TUPE regulations. In my opinion, the addition is unnecessary. The TUPE regulations already have the effect of preserving rights that arise pursuant to the contract of employment. That protection extends to statutory employment rights arising pursuant to the contract of employment.
	I sympathise with the spirit in which the clause was tabled, but, as I have already explained, there is no need for it. I respectfully ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

John McDonnell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16
	 — 
	Exclusion or Expulsion from Trade Union

(1) Section 174 of the 1992 Act (right not to be excluded or expelled from trade union) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)(d) for "entirely attributable to his conduct" substitute "in accordance with the rules of the union relating to exclusion or expulsion unless the consequence of exclusion or expulsion is that the excluded or expelled person is for that reason denied or deprived of employment or unless the exclusion or expulsion is unlawful.".
	(3) Omit subsection (4).'. [John McDonnell.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

John McDonnell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 26, in page 48, line 40 [Schedule 2], at end insert
	Section 174(4).'.

John McDonnell: I shall be exceedingly brief. The new clause and the amendment deal with the right of trade unions to exclude members. That obviously relates to the case of Mr. Steff and ASLEF. Mr. Steff was a member of the British National party.
	The new clause gives effect to article 11 of the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms, which is part of UK law by reason of the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 11 explains that a person can be excluded from an association as long as that does not result in a disproportionate penalty or unlawful discrimination. The only right to prevent somebody joining a union is if that would result in a disproportionate penalty for example, loss of employment or if it would be contrary to the law on discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, gender and so on. The purpose behind the new clause is to put into the Bill, simply and clearly, the ability of a trade union to determine which person can join. At the same time, it prevents a union from discriminating against people if it would result in loss of employment or offend existing legislation.

Gerry Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend will know that in Committee I introduced a new clause—it is now clause 28—to give unions the latitude to deal adequately with political activists who pursue a racist or xenophobic political agenda. Our main aim was to ensure that unions could deal effectively with the kind of far-right political activists who are infiltrating their ranks and sowing the seeds of hatred and intolerance. At the same time, we wanted to protect the essential freedom of individuals to belong to a political party. I believe that there is widespread support for the Government in tackling this issue.
	Amendment No. 31 deletes the existing clause 28 so that new clause 16 can take effect. New clause 16 aims to achieve some of the same effects but does so in a different way. The new clause aims to give unions greater latitude by ensuring that they can exclude or expel individuals as long as it is within the union's rules to do so, and as long as it is lawful to do so and the exclusion or expulsion does not result in the individual being denied or deprived of employment.
	Both clause 28 and my hon. Friend's amendments cover similar territory. In many respects, we share common objectives. However, I believe that our clause is to be preferred. My hon. Friend's amendments go too far and would threaten important freedoms.
	New clause 16 would give unions a wide-ranging freedom to exclude or expel. However, the amendment would take no account of the need to protect essential freedoms for individuals to belong to a political party. Our proposals provide for unions to expel on grounds of political party activities. We believe that is fair. New clause 16 would provide for unions to expel or exclude on those grounds or on the grounds of just belonging to a political party.
	I recognise that this issue has a number of human rights implications. It concerns rights of association both for existing union members and aspiring union members. It also raises issues about rights of expression. This is a delicate area. As I have said, I believe that our proposals strike the right balance.
	The new clause also refers directly to the "rules of a union". In Committee, questions were raised as to whether the use of this term, in relation to the remedies that are available when an individual is excluded or expelled, is broad enough to cover the aims and objectives of the union in promoting diversity and opposing discrimination. Such objects or aims are not always expressed as union rules. We think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed in clause 28. We are therefore holding discussions with the TUC with a view to bringing forward amendments in the other place. I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause and related amendments.

John McDonnell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 18
	 — 
	Protection of Journalists

After section 104C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18) insert
	"104D Journalists
	An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed, if the reason (or, of more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that
	(a) the employee works as a journalist and,
	(b) refused (or proposed to refuse) to carry out any act that would amount to a contravention of the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice that applies at that time." .'. [John McDonnell.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

John McDonnell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	Journalists have come under pressure in recent times with regard to their employment, as a result of their courage in standing by their code of practice as agreed by the Press Complaints Commission. A number of journalists have made it clear to their employers that they wish to uphold the status of their profession by adhering to the code of practice, which ensures, for example, that they do not misrepresent, that they do not identify or in any way contribute to the identification of victims of sexual assault, and that they protect their confidential sources.
	The new clause introduces into British law a conscience clause to protect that area of employment. The clause would ensure that any attempt to dismiss a journalist for refusing to break the Press Complaints Commission code of practice would be unlawful and therefore actionable in law in respect of compensation. The issue has come up on a number of occasions. There is a case that is currently sub judice so we cannot refer to it, but the National Union of Journalists believes that the matter should be debated adequately and that we should return to it later.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Let me stress that the Government always deplore arbitrary and unfair dismissals. The unfair dismissal legislation, which is generally considered to be working well, has been carefully drawn up to ensure that employees are protected against unfair treatment. For a dismissal to be fair, an employer must not only have dismissed the employee for a fair reason, but must have acted reasonably in doing so. As hon. Members know, the legislation also specifies certain particularly serious reasons for dismissal that are regarded as automatically unfair. These include, for instance, pregnancy or maternity, and trade union membership, non-membership or activities. My hon. Friend seeks to add to these reasons.
	Before any additions to the list of automatically unfair reasons are considered, however, we must be clear that they are both necessary and appropriate, and I do not believe that the addition proposed by my hon. Friend fits either criterion, although I am sympathetic to his underlying concern. I understand that the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct applies to editors and publishers, as well as to those who work for them. A publisher or editor's dismissal of a journalist for declining to breach a code of conduct that applies equally to both parties is most unlikely to be considered a fair one by an employment tribunal, and to that extent the amendment is unnecessary.
	I also understand, however, that exceptions to some of the code's provisions can be made in exceptional circumstances, and to that extent the amendment is inappropriate. It assumes, in effect, that no breach is ever defensible, and thus that no journalist should ever be called to account by his employer for refusing to depart from its recommendations. That goes too far in constraining employers. I hope my hon. Friend will accept these points. In view of the ample protection provided by the existing legislation, I invite him to withdraw the new clause.

John McDonnell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Union Communications with Workers After Acceptance of Application

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 7, line 29, leave out (4)' and insert
	(4ZE) (which is inserted by section (Additional duties on employers informed of ballots))'. [Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Clause 11
	 — 
	Power to Amend Schedule A1 to the 1992 Act

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 11, line 10, after 7(6),', insert 27C,'.
	No. 6, in page 11, line 10, after 29(5),', insert 119C,'. [Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Clause 24
	 — 
	Inducements Relating to Union Membership or Activities

John McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 21, line 8, leave out from (1) to of' in line 9 and insert
	An employer shall not make an offer or a threat to any worker with the purpose or the effect'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 21, line 35, after worker', insert or a trade union'.
	No. 22, in page 21, line 36, leave out his' and insert the worker's'.
	No. 17, in page 21, line 36, leave out him' and insert the worker'.
	No. 18, in page 21, line 39, leave out
	which is recognised by his employer'.
	No. 19, in page 22, line 14, after worker', insert or a trade union'.
	No. 21, in page 22, line 15, leave out his' and insert the worker's'.
	No. 20, in page 22, line 15, leave out him' and insert the worker'.
	No. 23, in page 24, line 32 [Clause 26], leave out subsection (2) and insert
	(2) For subsection (1) substitute
	"(1) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment as an individual by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that
	(a) he was or sought to become a member of an independent trade union,
	(b) he took part or sought to take part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time,
	(c) he made use of or sought to make use of trade union services at an appropriate time,
	(d) he failed to accept an offer made in contravention of section 145A or 145B, or
	(e) he was not a member of any trade union or of a particular trade union or one of a number of particular trade unions.".'.
	No. 13, in page 24, line 32, after (1),' insert
	after "purpose" insert "or with the effect", after "part" in paragraph (b) insert "or seeking to take part",'.
	No. 14, in page 24, line 34, after use', insert
	or seeking to make use'.
	No. 24, in page 25, line 4, leave out worker's "making use" ' and insert
	worker having "made use of or sought to make use of".'.
	No. 25, in page 25, line 9, leave out from "as' to end of line 10 and insert
	subjecting the worker to detriment on that ground is to be treated as subjecting him to a detriment within subsection (1)(c)'.
	No. 28, in page 25, leave out lines 11 to 14.
	No. 29, in page 25, line 15, leave out (2C)' and insert (1)(d)'.
	No. 7, in page 25, line 18, at end insert
	(4A) After subsection (4), insert
	"(4A) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of signing on or other bonus or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits so long as
	(a) there is no inhibition in the contract of employment of the worker receiving the same from being a member of any trade union, and
	(b) the said payments of higher wages or rates of pay or overtime or bonuses or the provision of other benefits are in accordance with the terms of a contract of employment and reasonably relate to the services provided by the worker under that contract." .'.
	No. 30, in page 25, line 20, at end insert
	(5A) In subsection (1) of section 148 of the 1992 Act, before the word purpose' insert "grounds on which, or, as the case may be,".'.

John McDonnell: Time does not permit a full debate of the issues covered by the amendments, so I shall refer to only one element. It was pointed out on Second Reading that, as the Bill is framed, it is almost impossible to interpret the meaning of "purpose". An employee would have to demonstrate that an employer was subjecting the employee to a detriment for the purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from performing a protected activity or penalising the worker for doing so. Already we struggle in courts of law to demonstrate the purpose. The employer need only give some vaguely plausible reason in order to wriggle out of the provisions of the current legislation. I urge a re-examination of the clause to see whether we can tighten it and incorporate in the legislation the true spirit of the judgment in the Wilson and Palmer case.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I appreciate my hon. Friend's brevity in dealing with a major issue in respect of the judgment in the Wilson and Palmer case.
	The Government believe that we have clearly set out our position in clauses that were discussed earlier. We think this is an issue around purpose. I was happy to meet Mr. Wilson of the Wilson and Palmer case, who is satisfied with what the Government have done. I ask my hon. Friend to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, as while I accept that there is a variance between us, the Government have moved some way towards incorporating the Wilson and Palmer judgment.

John McDonnell: I met Mr. Wilson as well on Friday, and I think that he has set his video recorder for this debate. I do not think that he is completely ecstatic with the Bill as it is now proposed, and I am sure that he would back further amendments. Perhaps we can discuss that at a later time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) would like to speak to our amendment No. 7. [Interruption.] She was present at the start of the debate. Would it be possible for her to speak to amendment No. 7?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not see the hon. Lady in her place trying to catch my eye.

Jonathan Djanogly: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not only did my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) stand up to catch your eye, but so did I, so I would appreciate it if that could be put on the record as well.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Both hon. Members were standing, but it was at the point when the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was withdrawing his amendment. I thought that we were moving to the next debate.

Eleanor Laing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was withdrawing amendment No. 15, but it was my intention to propose amendment No. 7, which stands on the amendment paper in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to advise the hon. Lady that we have now come to amendment No. 3, and although she stood up, it was not clear that she wished to speak. There was no indication that she wished to speak on that particular amendment. I have to say that we have now reached amendment No. 3.

Clause 34
	 — 
	Information and Consultation: Great Britain

Brian Cotter: I beg to move amendment No. 3,
	in page 30, line 9, at end insert
	(1A) The Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate on the establishment of works councils as an arrangement suitable for informing and consulting employees and shall publish the responses received pursuant to those consultations, together with guidance on best practice for works councils, before making the regulations referred to in subsection (1).'.
	I wish to mark a card for this amendment, which the Liberal Democrats consider extremely important. As the Minister will know from discussions in Committee, we consider that works councils are important not only for employees, but for employers, in ensuring that companies are run well and with the full co-operation and help of their employees. In view of the lateness of the hour, I say to the Minister that I hope that he has taken on board our arguments and that he will accept that we have a valid argument and at least recognise that the works council approach has merit and is worth consideration.

Gerry Sutcliffe: There are two aspects to the amendment. On the consultation aspect, the implementation of the information and consultation directive has been the result of extensive consultation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The amendment would impose a statutory requirement not only when the regulations are made initially, but whenever they may be amended in future, which would not be desirable. The Department already follows Cabinet Office guidelines on public consultation and publishes the results of such consultations, so a statutory obligation would not improve things in practice.
	In the case of the information and consultation regulations, we are well aware that the implementation of the directive represents a particularly significant landmark in UK industrial relations, so it is very important that we approach the implementation in a positive and constructive manner. For the first step, we published the discussion document in July 2002, and we held a series a round-table discussions up and down the country with a wide range of individual businesses and their representatives, unions and employment experts, to discuss how best to approach implementation of the directive in the UK. Building on that initial consultation, the Government held discussions with the CBI, the TUC and a range of other organisations about the details of implementation.
	An agreed framework for implementing the directive was published on 7 July 2003, together with draft legislation, on which we invited comments, and a further series of round-table discussions were held around the country with a similar mix of experts. I attended five of those discussions myself, other Ministers were present at other events, and copies of the responses to the two consultations are available in the Department of Trade and Industry library. The responses indicate strong and broad support for our approach to implementation, and since the second consultation closed in November officials have been working with a range of stakeholders to refine and improve the regulations. We intend to publish a Government response to the consultation before the summer.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) for raising guidance. The Government have always intended that regulations should be accompanied by guidance. We know that it is very important to all the parties who will be affected by the Bill that guidance is available in advance of the legislation coming into force. We therefore intend to publish draft guidance that will explain how key concepts in the legislation are intended to work in practice. In addition, ACAS will produce best practice guidance that is designed to help information and consultation practitioners get to grips with some of the main issues involved in setting up and running information and consultation procedures. In those circumstances, and notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has said about the importance of works councils, which may be included in the consultation process, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Brian Cotter: I thank the Minister for his answer. We still feel that works councils are important, but, in the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 41, line 5, leave out Clause 46.
	Conservative Members are not against union modernisation, and we are certainly not against trade unions in fact, we are making a real effort to reach out to them. As I pointed out earlier, the Minister got wind of a meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and I had the other day with Mr. Brendan Barber. The meeting was constructive, and we have a great deal in common.
	The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the unions have shown remarkable resilience. They are modernising, but the key point is whether the state should fund the process. The Chancellor made it clear in his Budget that the country's finances are fully stretched borrowing is soaring and a black hole is opening up but the Government still spend our money with irresponsible abandon. The original budget for the Scottish Parliament was £44 million, but the cost is now more than £400 million, and there are also the Electoral Commission, the supreme court and now the modernisation fund.
	Our concern is that there is no ceiling or limit on the money for the modernisation fund. Clause 116A states:
	"The Secretary of State may provide money".
	The Minister has stated that the sum will be between £5 million and £10 million over several years, but the commitment is open-ended.
	Furthermore, the Minister said in Committee that the money may be spent only on specific items, and the clause mentions various items and initiatives that it can be used for. Clause 116A(3) states:
	"Money may be provided in such a way as the Secretary of State thinks fit".

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman will surely remember the partnership fund and the working partnership fund, which his party supported. We have set out the union modernisation fund in exactly the same way as the partnership fund.

Henry Bellingham: The DTI partnership fund discusses match funding, but there is no match funding in the Bill. If the Minister were following the rules of the partnership fund, the unions would have to put up a pound for every pound the Government put up.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Just to be clear, we followed not the rules of the fund, but the way in which it was introduced.

Henry Bellingham: We are still not satisfied. There should be an equal pool of money. We do not want clause 46 to go ahead, but, if it does, it should be even-handed. Many employer organisations want to modernise, reach out to their members and introduce new ways of communicating and dealing with their members, but there is no money for them. The clause is in no way even-handed: it is completely one-sided. The Minister has said on many occasions that the essence of the Bill is even-handedness, but this provision is not even-handed; it is biased and unnecessary. How do we know that the money is not a sop or a bung to the trade unions? That is why we tabled the amendment to delete the clause.

Rob Marris: The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) set out three concerns: first, the way in which the money might be spent; secondly, the amount of money, there being no cap; and, thirdly, the lack of even-handedness. It surprises me that he did not table an amendment to that effect instead of one that would delete clause 46 altogether. That suggests to me that his true motives are not those that he specified and that he has another agenda to do down the unions.

Jonathan Djanogly: To answer the hon. Gentleman's last point, the reason such an amendment was not tabled is that the Government inserted the provision in Committee at the last minute, so we had no alternative.
	I am grateful to be able to speak on this bung clause the sort of law that most people would not believe could be introduced. It is unbelievable that the Government are not saying how much they will give to the unions. Will it be £5 million or £10 million? Presumably £6.4 million would be the benchmark, as that is the amount that the unions provided to the Labour party last year.

John Mann: The money that unions give as donations is governed by their political fund ballot rules. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of those rules?

Jonathan Djanogly: I am indeed.
	Do unions need modernisation in the first place? They probably do. In January, ASLEF wrote to 40 of its employees listing penalties, including the sack if they went on strike, and derecognition of the GMB union. It looks as though ASLEF does need a bit of modernisation. Last year, the GMB had its own problems. A leaked report shows that 60 employment tribunal cases lodged against the GMB cost it some £4 million. They included cases of sexual harassment, bullying, discrimination, and unfair dismissal; and it had a £19 million deficit in its employee pension fund to boot no wonder The Guardian reported that it must rank among the worst employers in Britain. Unions probably do need a bit of modernisation, but the question is: should the taxpayer pay for it? My answer would be no.

John Mann: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) is rather too young to recall some of the activities of previous Governments, but it may help him if I remind him of the moneys given in the late 1980s by the Department of Trade and Industry under Lord Tebbit for the modernisation of trade unions. The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to know that from 1979 to 1992, under successive Governments, the education Department gave money for the modernisation of trade unions.

Henry Bellingham: During the course of the Conservative Administrations, well over £20 million was given to the trade unions for specific ring-fenced items such as running secret ballots, but this money is completely open-ended.

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman is not too young, but again he gets it wrong. When I applied for money from those two Departments and from others such as the Department of Employment, there was no ring-fencing. The forms were absolutely clear that it was money for modernisation. This is a fine tradition, and I back the proposal.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am pleased that we reached the amendment because the discussion demonstrates again the Conservative party's prejudice against trade unions. Conservative Members talk about being pro-trade union. They have held two meetings with Brendan Barber, and I am pleased that they have got into dialogue but I wonder whether they spoke to the unions about modernisation.
	Conservative Members' attitude is unsurprising but deeply disappointing because the Bill has tried to foster a new mood of co-operation and a culture change. However, we have the same old Tories saying the same old things about trade unions. I tried to give assurances and explanations in Committee, and I believed that Opposition Members agreed with me about the structure that we were trying to achieve. That certainly applied to Liberal Democrat Members, who opposed the money resolution but accepted some of the points that I made about the culture.
	Some trade unions have amalgamated for a variety of reasons. We require a modern approach to employment relations, and that means that trade unions must have the skills to deal with the modern environment. The idea that the money will be used for donations to trade unions is not correct. The suggestion that the money is a bung is simply untrue and part of the scare stories that Conservative Members have presented.

Rob Marris: Will my hon. Friend clarify a point that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) made? He appeared to suggest that Conservative Members had not had time to table a reasoned amendment to clause 46 commensurate with their views of it.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. From day one of the Committee proceedings, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) attacked the trade union movement in any way that he saw fit. He stuck to the employers without speaking to them. If he had spoken to them, he would realise that they are impressed by the new culture that the Government are introducing. There is a framework agreement on information and consultation.
	The law on political forums is contained in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which was tightly drawn. Neither the clause that we are considering nor any provisions in our previous Bill have changed that legal framework. Unions cannot spend money on political objects, including donations to political parties, unless they have established a separate political fund for that purpose. They are prevented by law from using money from their general fund for such purposes. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk to apologise for describing the money as a bung.

Henry Bellingham: I shall not apologise because the Minister said that approximately £6 million would be paid to the unions for modernisation. Would not it be better if the £6 million that the trade unions pay the Labour party were used for that modernisation?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is clear that we are entering a new era of employment relations.
	I must apologise to the House because I made a slip of the tongue in the debate on the money resolution when I said that employers' organisations, especially the EEF, had received money for structural changes. That was not correct, and I apologise for it. They had received money for projects. Indeed, £500 million has gone into developing business projects, and that is right. It is a commendable exercise by the Government to enhance and develop business and its activities.
	However, we also need to tackle the other side of the equation. As I said earlier, the number of amalgamations between unions has meant that they have experienced a reduction in numbers. It is important that union officials can understand company balance sheets and work out the issues that affect the future of companies, especially, for example, the information and consultation directive.
	It is vital to approach the matter in an adult and consensual way and for the fund to be set up in the same way as the partnership fund. It is also vital that there should be much consultation in the summer with employers and employers' organisations. Their representatives will sit on bodies to determine the allocation of the funds in the same way as happened with the partnership fund. The yah-boo-sucks politics of Conservative Members shows that they do not want to have a serious look at the fund; they simply want to scaremonger. They do not support the need for modernisation. They have approached the issues in this part of the Bill in a very negative way, and have not understood the opportunities that exist for a modern approach to employment relations by ensuring that both unions and employers have the same capabilities, and that the highly productive, high-performance workplaces that we want can be achieved. We are going through a critical period of global competition, and the union modernisation fund will be a positive step towards ensuring that trade unions

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Order [25 March], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 315.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Patricia Hewitt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I shall begin by drawing attention to the Register of Members' Interests. Like all my hon. Friends, I am proud to be a member of a trade union. I am also proud of the fact that in Britain today there are more people in work than ever before 28 million. We have slashed long-term adult unemployment to below 140,000. In 1986, it stood at nearly 1.5 million. We have slashed long-term youth unemployment to about 20,000. Back in 1986, 300,000 young people were on the dole. We have lower unemployment rates than any other G7 economy, and in the last seven years 1.8 million new jobs have been created in our economy, seven out of 10 in the private sector. That has confounded all our critics, including Conservative Members who said that our policies to re-regulate the labour market would be a disaster for jobs. The opposite has proved to be the case, and the measures that we introduced in our first term are working well. We are building on those measures in the Bill.

John Redwood: Can the Secretary of State tell us what has happened to manufacturing jobs since the Government took office? Does that not demonstrate just how much damage some of their regulations have caused?

Patricia Hewitt: That is a bit much, coming from a former Minister in a Conservative Government who devastated manufacturing industry and manufacturing jobs in constituencies up and down the country and did not give a toss for the workers who were thrown out of work. I regret to say that, in many sectors, manufacturing employment has continued to fall. As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, there has been a global downturn, which has made life for manufacturing exporters exceedingly difficult. I am glad to say, however and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes this that manufacturing is now turning the corner. With a strong and stable economy, historically low interest rates, specific measures such as investment assistance and our wonderful Manufacturing Advisory Service, we are helping more manufacturing companies to become competitive. The right hon. Gentleman's party failed to provide such help.
	Getting people into work is essential, especially after the unemployment created by the Conservative party, but far more is needed in the modern world. We must have the conditions that will create more good jobs, better jobs and better workplaces. We know that the best businesses in our country operate on the basis of partnership between management and the work force partnership with a recognised trade union where there is one, but partnership in every case. Among the most important of the Bill's provisions are the measures on information and consultation. They give effect to the information and consultation directive but do so in a way that suits our particular circumstances in the United Kingdom. Our provisions on information and consultation will help to create, in larger workplaces, a culture of partnership in which employees are informed, involved and committed to the success of their business.

Jonathan Djanogly: What the Secretary of State says is not reflected in the Bill. The fact is that under the Bill, all that information and consultation is to be done by statutory instrument. She has not said how consultation or the directive will be put into effect, and if she would like to say now how that will happen, I should be grateful.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman must surely notice that the Bill provides precisely the statutory authority that will bring information and consultation into effect and, in so doing, will end the absolute scandal that too many members of our work force have had to put up with: that of hearing from the radio in the morning, or, as in one notorious case, by text message to their mobile phone, that they are to lose their job. We will not put up with that. We have worked with the CBI and the TUC to agree a framework for the implementation of the information and consultation directive, and I very much welcome the fact that Digby Jones has said on that:
	"We have reached this agreement . . . through constructive dialogue and discussion. It's exactly the spirit in which we all want new rules on information and consultation to operate in workplaces across Britain."
	That approach with the social partners is a model of the approach already being used by the best businesses, which we want more of our businesses to adopt. I pay tribute to the work of both those organisations in reaching that agreement.
	I also express my gratitude to hon. Members for their close interest in the Bill and the energy that they have displayed during its passage.

Henry Bellingham: On both sides?

Patricia Hewitt: There have been many constructive contributions, and I had the pleasure of reading the contributions that the hon. Gentleman made in Committee. I pay tribute to him for the spirit in which he moved, and then withdrew, several amendments. I also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) for the excellent work that he has done in shepherding the Bill through.
	We have had an extensive consultation process on the Bill, and we will continue to listen, particularly as we finalise some of the clauses that we have added more recently. We have never lost sight of the need to keep the costs to business to a minimum, and nothing that we have added to the Bill during its passage will add significantly to those costs.
	I shall highlight the changes that we have made to the Bill since its introduction. First, we are absolutely clear that we will not tolerate intimidation or bullying by employers or, indeed, by trade unions during recognition ballots. We will not have in Britain the kind of union-busting tactics that I am afraid have become all too commonplace in the United States. They are, fortunately, rare in our country, but we have listened to concerns raised during the Bill's passage, and we have responded with the new clauses, moved by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, that have been added today.
	Secondly, we are not prepared to allow racists to hide behind membership of a political party to infiltrate trade union ranks. Clauses now in the Bill provide greater scope, quite properly, and in a way that complies with the Human Rights Act 1998, to root out that pernicious element and to exclude and expel it from trade union membership.
	Thirdly, we will not allow rogue employers or, indeed, trade unions to flout the rules on lawfully organised industrial action. I promised on Second Reading that we would look closely at the Friction Dynamics case. That case was not only unusual but, fortunately, unique, and as a result of our consideration of the experience of the Transport and General Workers Union members at Friction Dynamics we have now tightened the legal definitions so that we will not see a repeat of employees being locked out of their workplace while the employer pays little more than lip service if it can even be called that to their statutory obligations. Again, we have strengthened the Bill in that respect.
	Fourthly, we recognise the valuable role of modern trade unions in the modern workplace. They play a crucial role in helping to raise productivity, skills levels and the quality of our businesses' output. They can be partners with business in creating high performance, high productivity workplaces. Those are the only kind of workplaces that have a long-term future in an increasingly competitive global environment.
	The modernisation fund that we have just debated on Report will give trade unions targeted funding to help them keep up in the rapidly changing labour market, and to make step changes in the way in which they work. I want to add my assurances to those that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has given both this evening and in Committee: this is not money for trade union recruitment, or money that can be used for industrial action. Nor can it be used for the political purposes covered by the political funds, which are entirely separate, separately constituted by law, and cannot receive money from a trade union general fund.
	As my hon. Friend said, we shall of course consult fully on the plans for the fund, in order to ensure a robust set of rules, proper procedures and accountability, and so on. We will draw on the excellent existing model of the partnership at work fund, through which an independent advisory board makes recommendations on bids for money. We will not pre-judge the consultation process, but that model certainly provides a transparent and accountable method of allocating funds. The modernisation fund will account for between £5 million and £10 million, spread over several years. It will help trade unions to plan better for the long term, to think more strategically and to contribute better to our long-term economic success as a multiracial and diverse society.
	The Bill takes another important step towards accomplishing our vision of full and fulfilling employment, and it reinforces the framework of fair standards at work that we have established over the past five years. It builds on the vital achievements of the national minimum wage, which was recently increased again, protection for part-time workers, paid paternity leave, the doubling of the length of maternity leave, the new rights to family friendly working, and the trade union recognition to which I have referred. It also leaves untouched the fundamentals of the trade union recognition system that we put in place in our first term: the small firms threshold, the voting threshold and the voluntary agreements.
	We consulted extensively on those arrangements before the enactment of the Employment Relations Act 1999, and we know from our review that they are working. They have significantly increased, and are continuing to increase, the number of workplaces and workers covered by collective agreements, thereby helping to protect those workers, and helping even more importantly to create the partnership at work that I spoke of earlier. Business and employees are happy with them, and the number of stoppages at work due to labour disputes is at a record low. There were a mere 133 stoppages in 2003 the lowest figure since records began in 1920. I cannot go back quite as far as 200 years, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did recently, but it is a pretty good record, given the history of industrial relations in our country.

Jonathan Djanogly: That record sounds excellent until one considers the number of unofficial days off for last year. On doing so, 2003 turns into the worst year since 1997.

Patricia Hewitt: I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not make a comparison with the number of days lost under the Conservatives, especially in respect of the Royal Mail, for which I have a particular responsibility. Industrial relations are continuing to improve, despite all the scare stories from the Opposition at the time of the 1999 Act. We know that, crucial to success in a competitive global economy is the ability of Government, business, employees and their trade unions to work together on skills in high-performance workplaces and to ensure that we sustain the economic stability that has underpinned the extraordinary achievement on employment that we have delivered.
	I believe that it is an excellent Bill and I commend it to the House.

Stephen O'Brien: I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I should also like to say that I draw on many years of experience in manufacturing industry, working positively and constructively with all those in the business in which I was engaged including union members, union officials, individual employees and employers. It gives me great pleasure to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who served so diligently in Committee, and I pay tribute to the extraordinary hard work and scrutinising effectiveness of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham).
	There are real and urgent problems facing British industry today, and it is against that background that we must debate Third Reading. Productivity has halved since 1997, the total trade deficit rose to an unprecedented £18.8 billion last year and the British Chambers of Commerce informs us that the cost of regulation has shot up by an astonishing £9 billion in the last 12 months alone. The annual cost of poor skills amounts to an estimated further £10 billion.
	In that context, it speaks volumes about the priorities of the Government and the Secretary of State that we are not debating any of those vital issues, but another Employment Relations Bill, for which there is scant demand, least of all from those engaged at all levels working in British business. We know that there is little demand because the Bill arose from a Government-commissioned review of the Employment Relations Act 1999. According to the regulatory impact assessment published alongside the Bill,
	"The main conclusions of the review are that the legislation is generally working well".
	If the Government's own conclusion is that the current legislation is working well, is it not strange that they have decided to use primary legislation essentially to fine-tune an Act passed just four years earlier?
	The Employment Relations Bill that we are debating today is not the Bill that we saw on Second Reading. It is not the Bill whose tepid endorsement from the CBI and others was based on relief at its basic insubstantiality and on what it did not contain rather than what it did. We voted against it on Second Reading because it was an unnecessary Bill in its own terms.
	Precisely as I predicted in my Second Reading speech, the Bill has turned out to be a Christmas tree an unadorned framework on which interest groups, specifically the unions, have been invited to hang their favourite baubles. Precisely because that was my original suspicion, I asked the Secretary of State on Second Reading whether she would
	"assure the House that additional measures will not be introduced by Government amendment, or conceded by them, with the exception of those that she has already flagged and on which we have had a constructive exchange" [Official Report, 14 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 832.]
	Let me place on record, before Labour Members attempt to make any potentially mischievous or even grossly misrepresentative points, that what was then flagged was the Government amendment introduced after Second Reading, which resulted in what is now clause 28, dealing with the exclusion and expulsion from trade unions of racists. We said then that we would consider that positively, particularly when we had a chance to explore the detail, because Conservative Members are equally determined to root out racism. However, the clause does not refer to the British National party, only to "a political party" and to "excluded conduct" of an individual. That could have been achieved either through union rules or, failing that, by a statutory instrument brought under the authority of the 1999 Act. It does not justify the Government in bringing in wholly new primary legislation.
	The Secretary of State refused to give me the guarantee that I sought on introducing or conceding additional measures. Instead, we have seen a host of late amendments, a great many of which were tabled just five days ago in a deliberate attempt to downgrade the House's opportunities for scrutiny and for outside organisations such as the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and many others.
	Let me say to all those who study the record if asked, those who worked with me when I worked within a large unionised industry, would confirm it that I am not, nor have ever been, anti-trade unions or anti-trade unionists.
	Because this is a short debate, I have time to focus only on the most scandalous of the late amendments the Government's bung to the unions. The regulatory impact assessment accompanying the Bill states that the quantified benefit to the unions is between £75,000 and £108,000. The RIA was signed off on 3 December 2003. On 10 February 2004, the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers announced that he was tabling a new clause that would
	"make funds available to independent trade unions and federations of trade unions to modernise their operations."
	He also said that he envisaged that
	" the size of the fund would be in the region of £5 million–£10 million in total, with expenditure spread over several years, probably beginning in 2005–06." [Official Report, 10 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 67WS.]
	That happens to coincide with what we understand to be the £5 million to £10 million that the unions, from the hard-won earnings of trade unionists, give to the Labour party. Such a fundamental alteration to the Bill, so vaguely phrased and coming after the signing off of the RIA, constitutes a total abuse of the parliamentary process.
	Furthermore, it is evident that the Government have proposed this measure at great, uncapped cost to the taxpayer, having given no thought to the nature, structure, mandate or time limit of the so-called union modernisation fund.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend comment on how wide-ranging clause 46 is? As I understand it, the money can be applied for any existing purpose or any new, unspecified purpose. It could not be any wider.

Stephen O'Brien: My right hon. Friend puts his finger on the inadequate opportunity that the House has had to scrutinise the proposal. The proposal is vague, it was introduced after Second Reading and I am sure that the other place will wish to scrutinise it with great care and consideration.
	If I am wrong in what I have said, I invite the Secretary of State to intervene to correct me. Would she care to clarify the expenditure limit of the fund? Or will she confirm that effectively it has none? What is the time limit of the fund? Or will she have to confirm that it has none? As the Government know, it is not possible to amend a new clause in Committee. Why are the Government so reticent about providing a clear and accountable definition? Is it all part of the Government's embarrassed desire to avoid spelling out the extent of the bung?

Archie Norman: Does my hon. Friend also accept that this case is a clear illustration of the need for some form of external, objective audit of regulatory impact assessments? It is a classic case of the regulators assessing their own performance, being vague and, in this instance, virtually negligent in so doing.

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend anticipates my tribute to his ten-minute Bill on the issue, to which the Government have paid no attention. It would ensure a degree of independence and impartiality so that the Government could not up the benefits of a Bill but seek to diminish the costs.
	What is the justification for subsidising union modernisation but not a charity or voluntary organisation? Come to think of it, what is the Secretary of State's definition of modernisation, besides its habitual use by new Labour to mask yet again its absence of principle? It defines everything it sees as rotten so that it can justify the use of precious parliamentary time on it as necessary and useful. What processes will the Secretary of State put in place to ensure that the unlimited quantity of money goes exclusively towards the purposes of modernisation, whatever they may be? I am not surprised that we have heard no satisfactory answers to any of those questions. What is clear is that the only calculation that the Government have made is a cost-benefit analysis of throwing a sop to their friends and paymasters in an attempt to tame them ahead of the general election. That is the real regulatory impact assessment at the front of ministerial minds, not the version that they have provided for display in the Library.
	I note that the Government have made great play of the support of the CBI for the Bill. However, the CBI has made clear its views on the union modernisation fund, which was of course introduced after Second Reading and after it had given its approval to the contents of the Bill. The CBI believes that
	"the Government should not subsidise inefficient unions or union recruitment campaigns through its proposed union modernisation fund."
	The Minister attempted to suggest that such purposes have been excluded, but the Government have not defined what is included. Lack of precise definition is part of the problem. The CBI also says:
	"It is disappointing that the Government has taken this step given the low incidence of union membership in both the private and public sectors."
	That gives rise to the question of how much information the Government provided about the amendment and how much consultation took place between the Government and the CBI. Was it about as much as the Chancellor provided for the civil servants he summarily dismissed in his Budget address?
	The Secretary of State has rightly expressed her opposition to employees being sacked by text message, but what about a Government desperate to stay on-message on tackling public sector waste, which the Chancellor has now admitted amounts to £20 billion of taxpayers' money? I invite the Secretary of State to have a quiet word with her right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the importance of leading by example in a "no surprises" culture in the workplace. Does she not feel even a tiny pang of conscience, given her Under-Secretary's edict? On 2 December, in a DTI press release, he said:
	"I want to see an end to the climate where people only hear out of the blue about job losses from the media, or by text message. I want to see a "no surprises" culture at work where employers and employees discuss common ground and find solutions to mutual problems."
	Only yesterday, however, we learned in The Sunday Telegraph that the Government are to slash or relocate at least 1,500 jobs in an overhaul of the Department of Trade and Industry. It reported:
	The headcount at the DTI's headquarters will be reduced by a third, with about 650 jobs cut and around 850 relocated to the regions."

Patricia Hewitt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we have been talking to our trade unions for several months about our plans to make our work force more efficient and to relocate some of our jobs.

Stephen O'Brien: It may be of some comfort to know that a fairly Chancellor-led surprise announcement was actually in train and that there were discussions with what the Secretary of State calls "our trade unions" rather than "the trade unions", which would be a more proper way of putting it. That is important.
	Despite the Secretary of State's attempt to reassure us, it is equally important that, when the Government issue announcements about job cuts in the public sector, including the way that they slip out news about sackings from her own Department, they should be judged by their deeds. At the very least, they should adopt for their Departments the standards that she seeks to impose through the Bill on other employers, especially those in the private sector who are risk takers as opposed to the non-wealth-creating public sector [Interruption.] Labour Members hate hearing that. They do not like to be rumbled, because the Bill is an effort to dress up something to do with their electoral advantage, as they define it, rather than a true concern for good business, good employment and good, safe jobs.
	The other highly flawed provision in the Bill is the incorporation of the information and consultation directive in UK law. In that regard, I refer again to the regulatory impact assessment published in conjunction with the Bill. Incidentally, I make no apologies for my repeated references to the impact of regulation. On the Opposition Benches, we take that very seriously indeed, although I confess that I would have more faith in the reliability of RIAs if even one burdensome regulation had been aborted as a result of that procedure. I asked the Secretary of State about that in a written question, but she relied on her Cabinet Office colleague, who declined to give even one such example. The Minister for the Cabinet Office stated:
	"There are no cross-government figures on the number of RIAs that resulted in decisions not to proceed with new regulations." [Official Report, 2 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 715W.]
	Even the tentative quantification of the RIA cannot disguise the fact that the one-off costs to business of implementing the measure will be £45 million and that the recurring annual costs will be £46 million. This single measure alone accounts for more than 75 per cent. of the recurring regulatory costs of the entire Employment Relations Act 1999, which was itself a costly piece of legislation for British business. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the belief, which she expressed on Second Reading, that the costs of the Bill to employers are broadly "insignificant". In her speech this evening, she said that the amendments subsequently proposed would not add a significant cost to businesses.

Patricia Hewitt: I am puzzled. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is against the union modernisation fund; that is a clear dividing line. But is he also telling the House that he is against the information and consultation provisions?

Stephen O'Brien: Perhaps the Secretary of State should hold her breath. I am just about to develop why the Government have chosen to implement the information and consultation directive in a form much broader than was sought in respect of its imposition on this country. As the director general of the CBI has noted, the directive is
	"a poor piece of EU legislation".
	The fact that the Government lack the will and the influence in Brussels to refine an evidently crude directive at its inception is therefore regrettable, as is their lack of a requirement for a full regulatory impact assessment of that or any other EU regulation while it is being drawn up despite the fact that it is at that stage that the Government can do most to influence a directive's nature and outcome. Theirs is an oddly relaxed attitude, given that about 40 per cent. of UK regulations that originate in Brussels are more costly to British business than those that originate in this place.
	Even more galling is the way in which the Government manage to make the worst of a bad situation by transcribing burdensome directives into UK law with disproportionate zeal. There is no reason why the information and consultation directive should not have been introduced via a statutory instrument indeed, it is unusual to introduce such a directive by primary legislation and to give the Secretary of State significant powers to
	"make any provision which appears . . . to be necessary or expedient".
	Why have the Government taken such wide-ranging powers when they did not want the directive in the first place? Lord Sainsbury of Turville a DTI Minister is on the record as saying that
	"a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community . . . is difficult to reconcile with subsidiarity and would cut across member state traditions to no benefit." [Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. WA 14.]
	If the Government are capable of so vigorously to the tune of £45 million a year gold-plating legislation of which they do not even approve, it is terrifying to consider how they implement regulation that they endorse. That goes some way to explaining the BCC figure I mentioned earlier that the cost of regulation on British business has rocketed by £9 billion in the past 12 months alone.
	What began as a non-Bill has ended up as a stealth Bill, which will serve to strengthen the unions' power and the Labour party's purported links to them, and to weaken both British business and Parliament. It is an abuse of taxpayers' money and of the scrutiny procedures of this House. One of the few positive notes that can be struck is that it represents a powerful and definitive argument for the two excellent ten-minute Bills recently presented by Back-Bench Members of the official Opposition, my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon and for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman).
	The Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon was designed to eradicate precisely the thoughtless bureaucratic gold-plating of EU directives that the Bill embodies in relation to the information and consultation directive. The European Communities (Deregulation) Bill declares that provisions of regulations will not have to be enforced if it can be proved that they will impose higher compliance costs or a heavier sanction for failure to comply than in other EU member states. That is a constructive and commendable approach to over-burdensome EU regulation, and any Government interested in our British national interest should take my hon. Friend's Bill seriously.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is delivering a racy and intoxicating speech to which I hope I can add. Does he agree that it is most regrettable that the pioneering stance on sunset regulation adopted by the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as reflected in the Electronic Communications Act 2000, has since been abandoned and the Government are now adopting a tepid and reactionary attitude that fails to give the proper opportunity to minimise regulation in the way that the example of the United States teaches us is beneficial to industry and commerce?

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is nice to know that a speech can be intoxicating, although I assure the House that, at this stage of the day, I have not had the benefit of anything intoxicating to help me along. More important, he can be reassured that a presumption in favour of sunset clauses is a plank in the official Opposition's proposals to aid the British economy and British business, and that presumption will not be ditched for the sake of expediency.
	The Government ignored the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. Yet again, they displayed their indifference to the needs of British business. With reference to the disgraceful way in which the union modernisation fund was announced, it is clear that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells of a system of post-implementation audits for RIAs, as set out in his Regulatory Impact Assessments (Audits) Bill, would prevent Ministers from getting away with the shameful practice of signing off RIAs, only to table amendments later that impose potentially vast additional costs on the taxpayer. Indeed, my hon. Friend also provided for the fact that those who promote a Bill and who argue in favour of its benefits cannot be expected to be trusted to be impartial about the costs. Again, there was no squeak of interest from the Secretary of State or her Government colleagues. I know that my colleagues in the other place will be interested in pursuing all these points.
	As presented on Second Reading, the Bill was unnecessary. Now, as predicted by the Opposition and feared by British business, it has become costly, nannying, preachy and burdensome. It is highly unlikely that it will influence a few bad employers. It will increase burdens on already good employers and give comfort to the few bad unions. The Bill is a product of the distorted priorities of those who sponsored it a Government who are desperate to curry favour with their paymaster unions and a Department that is structurally indifferent to the flexible and fair needs of British business and wealth-creating small businesses, especially those employing fewer than 50 people. Above all, it is not even-handed between employer and employee. Had we been able to debate amendment No. 7, I know that that issue would have been taken seriously in another place. It is appropriately known as the Miller amendment.
	It is no accident that the resource budget for employment relations of the Department of Trade and Industry has more than tripled since 1998, while the allocation for innovation has fallen by 7 per cent. over the same period. It is a matter of fact that the Secretary of State, like her Department, is on the side of the regulators and against enterprising British entrepreneurs and innovators. Unless and until there is a re-evaluation of the purpose and priorities of the Department, I believe that businesses will continue to suffer. The Bill is the latest in a litany of measures that the Government have introduced to burden British business. Unless it is defeated this evening I urge my colleagues and all other Members to join me in the No Lobby it will sit as another glaring indictment on the charge sheet against this Labour Government and this Secretary of State.

Jim Sheridan: It is unfortunate that, once again, those who spoke from the Front Benches took most of the time that was allocated to an important debate.
	As a long-standing member of the Transport and General Workers Union, I am proud of the Government for introducing legislation that protects and enhances the role of trade unions. I would argue that another term of Conservative government would have sounded the death knell for trade unions. In that event, we would have been talking today about the reinvigoration of trade unions instead of helping them to expand.
	The T and G was much involved in my education and assisted me in getting to this place, for which I am extremely grateful. Many Labour Members have experience of working through the trade union movement and in so doing getting their education. There is an argument that we need more people of the same background and experience in the House if it is to be representative of the work force.
	The most chilling comment that I heard during the debate came from the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. He said that employees' performance could be affected if they had to attend trade union meetings.

Henry Bellingham: I was making the point that when more than one member of staff went consistently to meetings perhaps three, four, five or six meetings that could affect performance, particularly in relation to health and safety.

Jim Sheridan: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but it was chilling to hear him say that the performance of employees could be affected if they had to attend a trade union meeting. Many members of the Labour party have experience of attending trade union meetings and of being discriminated against because they did so. Many of them are still on the dole as a result of being blacklisted. They are still looking for a job. In some instances, that is the result of the legislation that the Tory Government brought in.
	Not much mention has been made of the foot soldiers in the trade union movement shop stewards. There are young shop stewards, and I have in mind particularly the young females in the trade union movement, which is trying to encourage more women to become representatives. That is something that the Labour party would welcome.
	I would put employers into three categories. There is the progressive employer who has nothing to fear from the Bill. The company that I have recently left is already engaged in consulting and helping trade unions, especially with training. It offers resources to help shop stewards to be trained. It recognises that that adds value to the company and helps to increase productivity. There is no problem with that.
	Secondly, there are negative employers who wish to take advantage of inexperienced young shop stewards. They keep them waiting in corridors. They misinform them and treat them as idiots. Finally, there is the altruistic employer, whose attitude is, "If you do what you're told, if you're a good boy or a good girl, you'll be here for ever. Just do what I tell you." In my experience of working with the trade unions, I have never yet met a bad employer. I look forward to the day when I do.
	On the modernisation fund, it is only right that trade unions should be given money to enable employees to negotiate on a level playing field with employers.

Anne Picking: On the money going to modernise trade unions, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is no surprise to us that the Tories were against that. They are always anti-union and always will be. Is he as surprised as I am that the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists, who claim to be friends of the trade union movement, abstained or voted against it?

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As a former president of Unison, the public services union, she knows what she is talking about. She is right. In my area, Renfrewshire, the Liberals claim to be the allies of the trade unions, but when it comes to giving the trade unions the resources to do the job, what do the Liberals do? They vote against it. The SNP say they stand up for Scotland. Where were they when it came to resources for the trade unions? They were not here. They could not be bothered to turn up. That explains why the people of Scotland should reject the nationalists, and why people throughout Britain should reject the Liberals.
	Negotiations on pensions are complex, as are negotiations on health and safety. It is important that we have proper health and safety legislation that shop stewards and health and safety representatives are aware of and can deal with. We need people to know what employment law is about and how to relate that to the members. The same applies to company law. I know that many on the Opposition Benches do not understand why shop stewards should be involved with company law. They would rather keep that for the lawyers and the courtrooms. On redundancy packages and productivity pay, why should people not receive the best advice?
	It would be remiss of me not to mention gangmasters. In that connection I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk for his assistance and for recognising that legislation is needed to stop people being exploited by unscrupulous gangmasters, especially in agriculture. A private Member's Bill is going through the House and I hope that, with the support of hon. Members of all parties, it will become law.
	We have tried voluntary codes and we have tried free markets, but they have not worked, so we need to try something else. Legislation is not a panacea for all the inequalities in the workplace, but it will go a long way towards stopping them. Effective employment legislation is needed particularly in agriculture, where current practice is nothing more than modern slavery and should be outlawed at every level. In addition to effective legislation, we need ministerial responsibility and financial resources to deal with unscrupulous employers.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Sheridan: My nipples are about to explode in anticipation of what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Jonathan Djanogly: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Bill is about squashing individual rights? We have the bosses getting together with the unions, and it is back to the 1950s. The people who suffer are individuals who want to have their own say.

Jim Sheridan: The Bill is about affording people the right to decent work and to dignity at work. When I spent time with the hon. Gentleman in Committee, it was nostalgic to hear him talk about trade unions, particularly when he talked about the 70s, 80s and 90s. Perhaps he was not around at that time, and he was basing his comments on what his parents or somebody else has told him. It was definitely nostalgic to listen to him talk about trade unions, his knowledge of which is somewhat limited.

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [25 March], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair
	The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 134.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, the time constraints meant that you were not able to call me in the debate on Third Reading. I make no complaint about that I appreciate the rules of the House. However, that means that, in relation to a programmed debate, our reasons for supporting a Bill and our qualifications are not on the record. Secondly, I wonder whether you and/or Mr. Speaker could review the speaking rules for programmed and timetabled Bills to ensure that all major opinions in the House are properly heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I sympathise with the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman found himself. The Chair always nurses the hope on occasions when time is limited that hon. Members will somehow share out the time in a way that satisfies all points of view. Sometimes the Chair's hopes are not fulfilled.

Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be useful on such occasions if the party that complained did not support the programme motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not try to draw the Chair into a matter of debate. DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions 3 and 4.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved. [Paul Clark.]

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 18th March, be approved. [Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Review of the Working Time Directive

That this House takes note of the European Union Document No.5188/04, Commission Communication on the re-examination of Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time; welcomes the review; supports the retention of the opt-out to the working time limit; and urges that a solution to the problems caused by the European Court of Justice cases of SiMAP and Jaeger is found. [Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
	That the Pet Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements) (England) (Amendment) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No.828) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. [Paul Clark.]

CENSUS 1911

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Paul Clark.]

Alistair Carmichael: I fully appreciate that the subject of tonight's Adjournment debate might not feature in the editorial columns of tomorrow's newspapers, notwithstanding the fact that 1911 was a vintage year, when Lloyd George introduced old age pensions in his "people's Budget". However, I have received representations on the matter from several constituents. They are generally people who are interested in tracing their family histories and keen for the records to be brought into the public domain to assist that. I know that other hon. Members will have been contacted by constituents in similar circumstances. Indeed, only last week, I tabled early-day motion 871 on the release of the 1911 census data and it has already received 28 signatures from hon. Members of all parties.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) who has been very supportive and I am pleased that several hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who chairs the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, are present.
	The Minister will know about the phenomenal interest that was generated by the release of the 1901 census records in January 2002. He will also know that demand for the information was so great that 1.2 million people were trying to access the internet site that contained the records every hour. That somewhat outstripped the initial forecasts of 1.2 million users a day. That unforeseen demand resulted in the site's withdrawal on 7 January 2002, some five days after its launch. A full service was resumed 11 months later on 21 November. Whatever the Minister thinks about the release date for the records, I hope he will accept that when the 1911 census data are released, it must be done much more effectively.
	First, I want to consider the period of closure the time that must pass before the data are released. The Lord Chancellor recently advised an hon. Member that the period of census closure in Britain is normally 100 years. Only six out of the 15 pre-1910 United Kingdom censuses have been closed for 100 years. The details of nine out of 15 have been released after less than 90 years. The average closure period for censuses in Britain is 80 years and, according to the national archives in Dublin, records of the 1911 census in Northern Ireland were released in 1960, some 49 years after closure.
	Of course, I accept that the situation north of the border is now devolved, but it has become apparent to me through my correspondence with the General Register Office for Scotland that, in these matters, the General Registrar for Scotland will take the same line on the release of personal information as his colleagues in England.
	I do not wish to second-guess what the Minister will say tonight, but he will be aware that I have already tabled a number of parliamentary questions on this subject and I think that I can glean a fair idea from the answer that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 10 December 2003, in which he stated:
	"The 1911 census returns, now in the custody of the National Archives, are currently closed for 100 years by the Lord Chancellor's Instrument no. 12 of 1966, on the grounds that the information was supplied in strict confidence." [Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 457W.]
	Before the Minister restates that position tonight, it might be useful to examine the legal basis for that view, to have a brief look at some of the financial benefits that could result from an alternative approach, and to consider the situation that pertains in the Republic of Ireland.
	I shall turn first to the question of the legal basis. The principal point is that the original guarantee given to those who completed the 1911 census gave no time guarantee for the duration before which the records would be made public. The confidentiality assurances that were given to people in 1911 were outlined in a written answer that I received on 18 December. Those assurances stated:
	"The contents of the Schedule will be treated as confidential. Strict care will be taken that no information is disclosed with regard to individual persons. The returns are not to be used for proof of age, as in connection with Old Age Pensions, or for any other purpose than the preparation of Statistical Tables.'" [Official Report, 18 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1112W.]
	On a strict construction of that, one might say that no census would ever be released. The Government are clearly of the view, however, that that guarantee does not prevent the release of documents after a significant period has elapsed. That period is at the Lord Chancellor's discretion, and to hide behind the idea that we are keeping to a time guarantee given to those who completed census returns is slightly less than accurate. The 2001 census, for example, stated explicitly that records would be held confidentially for 100 years, but the situation in 1911 was very different.
	The Lord Chancellor's Instrument No. 12 of 1966 established the 100-year embargo rule. Prior to that, the delay in making records public had been much shorter. For example, the 1841 and 1851 records for England and Wales were both released in 1912. Scottish records were also held for less than 100 years. The 1891 Scottish returns, for instance, were made public after a delay of only 64 years. Given that the release of returns after 50 to 80 years was the practice in the first half of the last century, that no confidentiality time period was given on the 1911 census and that the Lord Chancellor's Instrument No. 12 of 1966 was 55 years away at that point, I would be very surprised if anyone who participated in that census really believed that their return would be held for exactly 100 years and not a day less. What is more, section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 provides for the general release of records after 50 years, and that was reduced to 30 years in 1967. The Lord Chancellor has the power to release the records early. The only question is whether he wants to.

John Taylor: I have a constituent who would like me to ask a question about the release of census records in Scotland, but how can I do that as an English MP?

Alistair Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman wants to enter into correspondence with the Registrar General for Scotland, my experience is that the Registrar General will be more than happy to help. Indeed, when the hon. Gentleman reads the earlier part of my speech in Hansard tomorrow I know he was unable to be here for the start of it, when I referred to him he will see that I have already explored with the Registrar General the question of release in Scotland. The approach that he takes is that it will be largely the same as that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	As a Member from a fiscally responsible party, I always endeavour to ensure that any call I make for Government action is fully costed. The good news for the Government in relation to this call is that such action would increase revenue flows to the Treasury. According to the National Audit Office report on the release of the 1901 census, "Unlocking the Past: the 1901 Census Online", the internet site allowing access to the England and Wales records generated revenues of £4.5 million by 31 October 2003. Of course, the fear is that the longer the 1911 census is not available to the public, the more revenue-raising potential will decline.
	The release of the 1901 census was more successful in Scotland than in England and Wales. There were not the same problems of over-demand for information leading to website failure. The NAO report suggests that that was the case for two reasons: an up-front charge for access to the Scottish website and the progressive release of data on microfilm before its release online. I hesitate to call on the Government to increase charges for access to records, especially given the revenues made without such charges for the England and Wales records, but I ask the Minister seriously to consider the release of the data on microfilm ahead of online release. If the Government are to stick rigidly to the 2012 date, that would be welcomed by many genealogists and would assist with an effective release of the records so that additional delays, as happened in 2002, would not occur again.
	In 1901 and 1911, the whole of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Censuses were carried out there along similar lines to those in England, Scotland and Wales. The 1901 Irish census returns have been available in the Republic on film since 1971, and the 1911 census returns since 2000. Does the Minister not think it strange that the 1901 Irish records were available on film in Dublin some 30 years before the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland released microfilms and that while there is already access to the 1911 records in the south, the north of Ireland will have to wait another eight years?
	I am keen that the Minister should have adequate time to reply to the points that I have raised, so I shall make one final substantive comment. The more I have looked into the matter, the more I have realised that it comes down to a question of freedom of information and the public interest on the one hand and the right of privacy given to individual citizens on the other. In this case, the right of the people who are researching their family histories—genealogists—has to be balanced against the right of people who participated in the 1911 census to have their responses kept confidential. On this matter, I gently suggest to the Minister that the Government have so far got the balance wrong.
	In a recent letter to me, the Registrar General for Scotland stated:
	"Ideally . . . we would want to wait until the death of the last person who had appeared in the census"
	before making the details public. He continued:
	"While that would be impractical, the 100 year milestone ensures that few will still be alive. With today's greater longevity, a shorter milestone (say, 90 years) would substantially increase the number of survivors who might object to their data being released."
	Today, millions of genealogists are keen to see the 1911 census. It carried no guarantee of confidentiality for a set period and it was taken when records were normally released after 60 to 80 years. What is more, the Lord Chancellor has the power to determine that it can be released before 2012, and the Irish equivalent, which was taken by the UK Government, is already available.
	Early release would generate money for the poor, cash-strapped Chancellor, so what is the reason for having to wait? Is there a vast lobby of 93-year-old people out there who are desperate for us not to know the contents of their census return their date of birth and their parents' names, addresses and occupations? I think not. I hope that the Minister has a much better explanation for us than that.

David Lammy: I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for raising the 1911 census for England and Wales. The Government welcome the opportunity to have a constructive debate on a complicated issue, which is to my mind essentially a question of balancing the access interests of family and other historians who wish to consult census returns to further their research against the privacy rights accorded to citizens when they provided personal information in their census returns. I am glad that he acknowledged that balance towards the end of his comments. I stress that tonight's debate is about England and Wales, since the Scottish census is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
	In recent years, many people have taken up family history for the first time and with a passion, as many key documentary sources have become available over the internet. The Government recognise that the pursuit of family history is very far from being a marginal leisure interest, as it has sometimes rather unfairly been regarded in the past. It fulfils two profound needs: the development of a sense of family, community and personal identity to provide a secure anchor for people in a sometimes rather anonymous modern world; and the satisfaction of a growing curiosity about the past. In the case of the United Kingdom, there is the additional desire on the part of family historians scattered across the globe to keep alive the link with the country from which their ancestors came.
	The Government have positively encouraged family historians by providing much easier access via the internet to the many records created by Government bodies that can assist family history research. That fits in well with the wider "Modernising Government" agenda to make major public services available online, so that citizens can use those services in ways and at times that are convenient to them.
	In the archival world, the national archive has made digital images of its major collection of wills available over the internet, and they are a crucial source for family historians stretching over 500 years. The archive runs an online family history consortium of Departments and other public bodies, which provides detailed guidance and signposts for those new to the subject. It also provides more than 200,000 original images about the experience of immigration into the UK since the mid-19th century, to attract new users to archives, as part of the Government's social inclusion agenda.
	We are well aware that not everyone wishes to, or can afford to, install a personal computer in their homes. That is why we revived this country's libraries by providing free access to computer terminals as part of a national information network, in addition to making them more animated places offering a focus for a wide range of community activities. By the end of this year, all the UK's more than 4,000 libraries will be linked to the internet as learning and access centres. All Members will be pleased to see their libraries revived around the country.
	In the last few years, there has been an explosion of interest in history, as the popularity of television programmes presented by Simon Schama, David Starkey and others indicates. Gone for ever are the days when history was the preserve of academic scholars in a few ivory-tower universities. The Government have played a full part in that transformation by increasing funding for museums, especially in the regions, and by abolishing entry charges, which has led to an increase in the number of people visiting museums. In the first year of the free access policy, which was introduced in late 2001, there were 5.3 million extra visits to museums, and last year there were an additional 5.6 million. The record is clear. There is support for libraries, museums and online services, and for those who want to understand not just the country's history but their own family histories.
	When decisions are made about the provision of access to personally sensitive information, either in original documents or in digital copies of them, the interests of researchers are not the only factor to be taken into account. There is sometimes a danger of our being swept along in our enthusiasm to make more material available, without acknowledging that the individuals who supplied personal information also have important rights. Far from favouring a nanny state in which all decisions are made by a Government who know best, we wish to build a mature relationship between state and citizen that is based on trust. In building that trust, the Government need to adopt a careful and discriminating approach to the collection of personal information, and to demonstrate that they will use that information responsibly. In short, the Government believe that the right to privacy, and to the confidentiality of sensitive personal information, is every bit as important in a flourishing democratic society as the right of access to that information.The release of the 1911 census provides one example of the need to strike a reasonable balance between the access rights of some citizens and the privacy rights of others.

Alistair Carmichael: I have a straightforward question. It is clear from the figures that I gave the Minister that the balance has been struck differently in the past. What has changed?

David Lammy: I shall explain that shortly, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. I can say, however, that on the last five or six occasions in the last century, the Government maintained the 100-year rule. For the 19th century, they reduced the period, but that was because there was a problem relating to pension entitlement. Individuals needed access to the census, and the Government took an interest in what was a national issue.
	It is also important to note what was on the census form at that time. As the hon. Gentleman will know, census forms have become more complex and ask more searching questions than they used to. The 1911 census form asked sensitive questions for the first time. We appreciate the importance to many people of gaining access to census records as a way of starting, or continuing to pursue, their family history research. However, in the case of the 1911 census that must be weighed against the undertaking given to householders at the time in the following emphatic terms:
	"The contents of the Schedule will be treated as confidential. Strict care will be taken that no information is disclosed with regard to individual persons".
	The hon. Gentleman says that no 100-year rule was mentioned, but another interpretation of that confidentiality was that it should be in perpetuity. Some countries destroy their censuses after a reasonable period to ensure confidentiality; we have used the 100-year rule as an alternative. We were giving a remarkably categorical assurance in 1911. The Government believe that it must be taken very seriously indeed, especially because at the time it was generally interpreted as having no expiry date.
	The hon. Gentleman has noted that the average time that elapsed between the taking of censuses in England, Wales and Scotland before 1911 and their public release was only 80 years, but there was a marked tendency for census forms in the 20th century to ask detailed questions. For example, the 1911 census introduced a question on fertility for the first time. If the average is to constitute any guide, we must be careful to compare like with like. Closer examination reveals that the hon. Gentleman's average of 80 years is heavily weighted towards 19th century censuses, which asked individuals for fewer details than later censuses. Censuses up to 1851 were made publicly available in the earlier 20th century because they often constituted the only proof of age, and therefore the only proof of entitlement to pensions, which were first provided by the state in 1908. Compared with later censuses, the 1841 and 1851 censuses asked for only basic personal information. Today, the state has a vast array of documentation relating to each citizen, and no one would seriously argue that access to the census returns is still necessary to establish proof of age.
	The legislative and social context in which censuses are conducted has changed enormously since the early 20th century. Another consideration is that average life expectancy has increased considerably during the past 150 years, so the closure period needed to ensure that sensitive personal information is not released within the lifetime of most individuals has correspondingly lengthened. For those reasons, the argument based on past averages of censuses more than 100 years old is not, in the end, persuasive.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. Is he, then, critical of the Government of the Republic of Ireland for releasing information from the 1911 census relating to people in Northern Ireland? As I said, that information is already in the public domain. Have the Government received any complaints from people in Northern Ireland about the release of the information relating to them?

David Lammy: In Northern Ireland, again, certain pension issues arose, which made that action necessary.
	It is sometimes suggested that the confidentiality undertaking given in 1911 can now be set aside because most, although by no means all, the people mentioned in those returns are now dead. However, if that view prevailed, the damaging effects on future nationwide censuses could be considerable. In 1966, the then Lord Chancellor signed an instrument, under section 5(l) of the Public Records Act 1958, closing all decennial census records for 100 years on the grounds that the information was supplied in confidence, and that its disclosure would constitute a breach of good faith. In 1981, the confidentiality assurance on the census forms was made even more explicit, and mentioned the 100-year closure period. The form for the most recent census, in 2001, included the following unequivocal statement:
	"The information you provide is protected by law and is treated in strict confidence. The information is only used for statistical purposes, and anyone using or disclosing Census information improperly will be liable to prosecution. Census forms will be held securely. Under the current terms of the Public Records Act 1958, the data will be treated as confidential for a period of 100 years."
	The primary purpose of the census is to compile statistics about the population so that the Government can, for example, take full account of rapidly changing demographics in order to make necessary provision for public services. Filling in the census is compulsory, and those who refuse to fill the forms in may be prosecuted. However, the plain fact of the matter is that the census will not be a successful information-gathering exercise if it is not generally acceptable to the public at large. We know from experience that many members of the public are concerned about the confidentiality of a census and the uses to which the information is put. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is debate in the House about certain aspects of the 2001 census, and it is important that we encourage Members to have such debates. It is right that we protect confidentiality in striking the necessary balance.
	If the Government were suddenly to reduce the closure period of 100 years for the 1911 census, seeds of doubt would inevitably be sown in the public's mind about the strength of the explicit assurance that later census returns will be closed for 100 years. No Government can afford to deprive themselves of the wealth of socio-economic data that contemporary censuses provide. The Government therefore believe that maintaining the security and confidentiality of the information that citizens supply about themselves in their census returns is of paramount importance. It is strongly in the national interest that public confidence in these confidentiality assurances be maintained.
	That is the fundamental reason why the Lord Chancellor does not intend to reconsider the 100-year closure period established in 1966. Since then, successive Governments have reaffirmed the position in the undertakings printed on census forms since 1981, in the 1993 White Paper on open government and in the White Paper on the 2001 census. It is for that reason that I am unable, I am afraid, to accept the case that the hon. Gentleman has made, although I am grateful to him for bringing this issue to the House's attention this evening.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.